
Jordan F1: Where did it all go wrong?
#1
Posted 05 February 2004 - 06:46
The 2000 season promised so much for Jordan. However just as their maiden victory at Spa 1998 was a sign of things to come the following season, so too was the DNF at Nurburgring 1999 where Heinz Harald Frentzen could very well have won had it not been for the retirement. That win could very easily have put him nine points clear of Hakkinen in the WDC title race with only two races left. He went on to score four more points that season compared to Hakkinen's 14 and he would still have lost the WDC by one point. However had Frentzen won at the Nurburgring who knows which way the WDC would have turned out in the end.
The 2000 season was riddled with retirements. Frentzen only managed 11 points for the entire season. And apart from the odd podium finish since, usually due to changable weather conditions, Jordan have well and truly slipped to the back of the grid.
So where did it all go wrong?
Personally I believe the terrible reliability the team endured through out 2000 contributed the most. They had pace in 2000, perhaps not enough to challenge Ferrari and McLaren, but enough to secure a strong WCC finish. After the 2000 season I imagine that Jordan lost some of its appeal to sponsers. Two years earlier sponsers saw a team that could challenge for a WDC which would have surely resulted in more money for the team to spend in 2000 to continue towards championship glory.
Instead, they blew it. Quite literally on more than one occassion.
How?
Advertisement
#2
Posted 05 February 2004 - 07:09

#3
Posted 05 February 2004 - 08:23
OK he had Peugeot, but engines kept blowing up.
Then the Mugen-Honda which became Honda. He lost the Honda deal to BAR which was a real shame.
I think that's where things went wrong, not having a good engine supplier. But then again all major manufacturers are already supplying teams.
For teams like jordan to be there there needs to be a rule saying that every engine supplier must at least supply two teams.
#4
Posted 05 February 2004 - 08:27
#5
Posted 05 February 2004 - 08:30
Honda's re-entry into F1 was probably the biggest factor in Eddie's recent downturn. Instead of powering Jordan to dominance (like Williams and McLaren in decades gone by) they opted to focus on turmoil-ridden BAR who underperformed despite the Honda favouritism. Any remnants of Gascoyne's positive influences were quickly extinguished.
Then Eddie opted for year-old Cosworth power. Oh dearie me... then there's the Bridgestone deficiency and the bungling of the Vodafone fiasco.
That they can field a car this season is a Lazarus-like miracle after all.
#6
Posted 05 February 2004 - 08:32
As a team, Jordan flattered to deceive - doing well when one or other of the 'top' teams was in a slump. McLaren and Ferrari in the mid '90's, Williams and Benetton in the late '90's and then fewer teams competing recently.
IMO:
EJ's a typical salesman - tells people what he thinks they want to hear. Hence, all these people joining Jordan and then getting out again very quickly when they realise that all the resources that EJ promised them when they joined are never going to appear.
Sponsorship - there was never any 'after-sales service' - as soon as EJ had the sponsor's cash, he couldn't care less about them. You only have to read the judges verdict in the Vodaphone case to see that.
#7
Posted 05 February 2004 - 09:00

But yes, good old Mugen withdrawing to allow 'proper' Honda in when the partnership was going along quite nicely wasn't good. Then BAR getting the exclusive Honda deal leaving Jordan with rubbish old Ford units pretty much did for Jordan in the short term. But saying that their new cars seems ok at the moment, NH isn't a bad driver so it looks as if they are starting to climb again oh & the small matter of the race win last year no matter how flukey.
#8
Posted 05 February 2004 - 09:17
Originally posted by madmac
Then BAR getting the exclusive Honda deal leaving Jordan with rubbish old Ford units pretty much did for Jordan in the short term.
Many would argue that it was Eddie's decision.
In the end, I'm sure there was mutual benefit to go separate ways but regardless, it was Eddie who elected to dump Honda with a year left on their original agreement.
I'm speculating here, but I suppose Eddie dumped Honda for Ford given that Honda was most likely not resigning with Jordan after the expiry of their contract in 2003. So he took the performance hit by using the year-old Cosworths, with Ford logos.
Which begs the question: what is he paying for the year-old Cosworths? Obviously Ford gets to put their logo on his car and Eddie gets dated engines. What're the cash details of the transaction? (So I can more accurately criticise his adoption of Ford Cosworth power hehe)
#9
Posted 05 February 2004 - 13:50
Originally posted by HSJ
Well, after 2000 they lost Gascoyne. And illegal TC advantage that might have had a little something to do with HHF's wet pace... I mean besides 99-00 at Jordan, when has HHF really shone for more than a single race at a time? 97 Williams perhaps?![]()
I think it was Stewart who had the traction control not Jordan. HHF was the best wet weather driver out there.
#10
Posted 05 February 2004 - 13:57
#11
Posted 05 February 2004 - 14:16
Originally posted by Pilla
I think it was Stewart who had the traction control not Jordan. HHF was the best wet weather driver out there.
The 'problems' that the Jordans had during the race was rather suspicious though.
I recall a Jordan engineer saying after the race " We know the problem and we're certain it won't ever occur again."
Both cars had trouble getting out of 1st/2nd gear. Hill out of the tight turns and Frentzen right after a pitstop. I'd reckon the team were using the pitlane speed controller to enable the cars to get low-speed traction but the cold and wet conditions meant they had the settings set a little too fine.
#12
Posted 05 February 2004 - 18:23

GP19
#13
Posted 05 February 2004 - 18:31
Originally posted by ckkl
Many would argue that it was Eddie's decision.
Ridiculous statement. Eddie would never give up a works deal for engines that are more expensive and less performant
#14
Posted 05 February 2004 - 18:40
Originally posted by Derbris
Ridiculous statement. Eddie would never give up a works deal for engines that are more expensive and less performant
Not true. EJ could of kept the Honda for another year. However EJ knew that he was going to lose the engine at the end of 2003. He switched over to Ford to guarentee the future of the team- he might not have been able to get an engine deal at the end of 2003.
Honda also wanted to end the partnership, so I am sure EJ took a few million off their hands ;)
#15
Posted 05 February 2004 - 18:54
Jordan got stuffed on that part.
look at it.
Mc Laren rab the puegeot engines that kept blowing up. They were then passed on to Jordan. Jordan started getting the job done with them - it was a helluva powerful unit, then the prost team appears. Puegeout suddenly go all french, dump Jordan and go to prost, leaving jordan the then pretty sad mugens.
So jordan runs those- just as they get going with those engines BAR arrives, honda pulls the mat out form under jordan's and mugens feet. They just did not like the fact the the customer mugens were trashing the works hondas.
The got the raw deal on engines and it killed them
#16
Posted 05 February 2004 - 23:03
Originally posted by FredF1
The 'problems' that the Jordans had during the race was rather suspicious though.
I recall a Jordan engineer saying after the race " We know the problem and we're certain it won't ever occur again."
Both cars had trouble getting out of 1st/2nd gear. Hill out of the tight turns and Frentzen right after a pitstop. I'd reckon the team were using the pitlane speed controller to enable the cars to get low-speed traction but the cold and wet conditions meant they had the settings set a little too fine.
But after a mid field team was found with illegal traction control Stewart had the biggest drop in performance Jordan was still competitive in 2000.
#17
Posted 06 February 2004 - 02:23
a) Ford produce a half decent engine and
b) Jordan can keep sponsors to afford the engines
c) Heidfeld and Driver X keep the car on the black stuff
then they will do ok.
P.S. I don't foresee any freaky GP wins this year.
#18
Posted 06 February 2004 - 02:58
#19
Posted 06 February 2004 - 04:31
Originally posted by iconic
maybe EJ is a bit wise with the engine choice. for 2004, he is getting the same spec as jaguar are. i'm guessing he would put up with year old engines so this year he can get the current spec ones?
He entered the deal with Ford (mid 2002) before the one engine per weekend rule was conceived. But it has turned out well for him so far.
Advertisement
#20
Posted 06 February 2004 - 06:20
But then you didn't forsee the one last year, right?;)Originally posted by markzed
P.S. I don't foresee any freaky GP wins this year.
#21
Posted 06 February 2004 - 09:03
Originally posted by Pilla
But after a mid field team was found with illegal traction control Stewart had the biggest drop in performance Jordan was still competitive in 2000.
True.
I'm not saying that Jordan were in the wrong. Back then, every team was fiddling about with engine mapping and the like in order to provide some sort of 'traction control'. Bending/re-interpreting the rules is part and parcel of F1 as far as I'm concerned.
Didn't Max Mosely hint that there was one team and 'others' who were under suspicion?
When Jaguar took over Stewart in 2000, there were a lot of reports that the Jaguar road car management were treating the team like a new toy and were squandering most of the work that JYS had done. Given the shambles they've turned the Jaguar into - it would explain a lot of the performance difference between 1999 and 2000.
#22
Posted 06 February 2004 - 10:01
Originally posted by FredF1
True.
I'm not saying that Jordan were in the wrong. Back then, every team was fiddling about with engine mapping and the like in order to provide some sort of 'traction control'. Bending/re-interpreting the rules is part and parcel of F1 as far as I'm concerned.
Didn't Max Mosely hint that there was one team and 'others' who were under suspicion?
When Jaguar took over Stewart in 2000, there were a lot of reports that the Jaguar road car management were treating the team like a new toy and were squandering most of the work that JYS had done. Given the shambles they've turned the Jaguar into - it would explain a lot of the performance difference between 1999 and 2000.
Of course its very possible that several teams were doing it and Jordan is definitely under suspicion however Stewart/Jaguar did have a more dramatic fall in performance from 99 to 00
#23
Posted 12 February 2004 - 19:21
How come Frentzen was good in the rain in 99, but Hill was useless?Originally posted by FredF1
The 'problems' that the Jordans had during the race was rather suspicious though.
I recall a Jordan engineer saying after the race " We know the problem and we're certain it won't ever occur again."
Both cars had trouble getting out of 1st/2nd gear. Hill out of the tight turns and Frentzen right after a pitstop. I'd reckon the team were using the pitlane speed controller to enable the cars to get low-speed traction but the cold and wet conditions meant they had the settings set a little too fine.
#24
Posted 12 February 2004 - 19:25
Jordan still had the performance in 2000 - it was just that awful experimental gearbox which kept failing. They had to compensate for a heavy engine, and made a gearbox that was too lightOriginally posted by Pilla
Of course its very possible that several teams were doing it and Jordan is definitely under suspicion however Stewart/Jaguar did have a more dramatic fall in performance from 99 to 00
#25
Posted 12 February 2004 - 19:56
#26
Posted 13 February 2004 - 07:00
Originally posted by Zeus
I agree with many of the comments in this thread. I have to wonder if Eddie Jordan's focus should be brought into question. He seems to be prone to the glamor side of F1 far more than other team principals (Dennis, Williams, Todt). I understand EJ is in a position where he is constantly looking for sponsors and that can mean doing things you'd otherwise not, but he seems to enjoy it a bit too much. Thoughts?
How about Briatorie?
#27
Posted 13 February 2004 - 08:26
Originally posted by eamo
How come Frentzen was good in the rain in 99, but Hill was useless?
I was referring to the cold and wet conditions at Nurburgring. I'll have to check my Autocourse to see what the conditions were over the 3 days - Forix only gives the race day weather.
Hill was just in it for the retirement money in 1999.
#28
Posted 13 February 2004 - 09:40
Originally posted by Pilla
How about Briatorie?
He's producing results. When he stops producing, ppl will complain.
#29
Posted 13 February 2004 - 09:43
then it went wrong when Eddy Jordan started to insult Jos the Boss.
#30
Posted 13 February 2004 - 13:49
Originally posted by Pilla
How about Briatorie?
Good point, Flavio certainly has his share of extracurricular activities. Although his career has not been one consistent high, the Supertec days were rather dismal.
#31
Posted 13 February 2004 - 16:12
earlier in the season Hill was trying. French GP was also wet, and he outclassed Hill.Originally posted by FredF1
I was referring to the cold and wet conditions at Nurburgring. I'll have to check my Autocourse to see what the conditions were over the 3 days - Forix only gives the race day weather.
Hill was just in it for the retirement money in 1999.
I wish people would just give Jordan credit for getting it right in 99.
Since, EJ has taken his eye of the ball. Hopefully this year will show a little bit more respectability, and will be the start of a steady climb back upwards. Unfortunately they are a bit off the pace at Jerez, altough getting quicker by the day
#32
Posted 13 February 2004 - 16:13
It went wrong before the EJ13 - and had nothing to do with JosOriginally posted by Frans
it went wrong with the EJ13.
then it went wrong when Eddy Jordan started to insult Jos the Boss.
#33
Posted 23 February 2004 - 23:32
http://www.f1jordan....ages/2_6159.gif
#34
Posted 24 February 2004 - 06:32
#35
Posted 24 February 2004 - 09:11
#36
Posted 24 February 2004 - 09:54
I“d be surprised to see the Trust logo on the Jordan.
#37
Posted 25 February 2004 - 08:11

#38
Posted 25 February 2004 - 08:26
i think it has gone wrong on several levels for Jordan begining with the unproffesional way they handled the HHF termination. that was completely uncalled for and badly handled.
then they have actively sought money in return for seats and have become a pay drivers paradise/sad drivers paradise.
they hired Fisichella which was a bad move again coz they didnt have the car therefroe they shouldnt have paid him his $5million or whatever it was worth.
they are stuck with no drivers and not enough money and no designers.
lets see how they get out of this one.
xxx
g
#39
Posted 25 February 2004 - 08:31
Originally posted by A3
Can anyone tell me why the hell Trust is still on the car? Assuming the picture on Jordan's website is recent:![]()
Hey! Is that the guy from Malaysia - Fairuz Fauzy, that Eddie Jordan was talking about endorsing?
Advertisement
#40
Posted 25 February 2004 - 09:46
Originally posted by The Vulcan
Hey! Is that the guy from Malaysia - Fairuz Fauzy, that Eddie Jordan was talking about endorsing?
Yup. I'm pretty sure that's him.
#41
Posted 25 February 2004 - 14:29
Originally posted by HSJ
Well, after 2000 they lost Gascoyne. And illegal TC advantage that might have had a little something to do with HHF's wet pace... I mean besides 99-00 at Jordan, when has HHF really shone for more than a single race at a time? 97 Williams perhaps?![]()
The EJ-10 was actually quicker in qualifying than the J199... so the "traction control advantage" didn't exist.
The team were competitive right up to (and including 2001), although in hindsight, with reliability, and maybe including the aero-imbalance the car had, 2000 was probably the season where the team had the quickest car (NOT 1999) available.
The 2001 car was very quick in qualifying, despite being handicapped by a **** honda engine... they outqualified the BARfs by nearly 2 seconds at silverstone in 2001. But bad set-up (which was eventually solved in the 2001/2002 off season... lot of use then) burned up the rear tyres so the race pace was awful.
2002, Eghbal Hamidy wasted MONTHS researching illegal components, and in truth I don't think the team has ever recovered right. EJ-12 was bad, and the engine only made it worse, but it is worth remembering that at Suzuka 2002, with a competitive (on power), but still overweight Honda, the qualifying order was:
2 ferraris
2 Williams
2 McLarens
2 Jordans
2 Renaults
So they were still up with the top teams with a decent engine, but had lost ground on previous years.
2003 was a nightmare, **** car, bad engine, **** tyres.... so 2004.... hopefully an improvement, well, it can hardly get any worse
#42
Posted 25 February 2004 - 16:13
Originally posted by kilcoo316
EJ-12 was bad, and the engine only made it worse, but it is worth remembering that at Suzuka 2002, with a competitive (on power), but still overweight Honda, the qualifying order was:
2 ferraris
2 Williams
2 McLarens
2 Jordans
2 Renaults
So they were still up with the top teams with a decent engine, but had lost ground on previous years.
I remember that race; Fisichella was running very slowly (probably chewed up his tyres) and was weaving all around trying to block Villeneuve (who was much faster). At that moment I lost all respect for Fisichella (though I suppose I've since calmed). No doubt the Honda brass were not pleased at that moment.
In the end I think only 1 of 4 Honda runners finished the race. A disappointing showing overall.
#43
Posted 25 February 2004 - 17:46
Then it started to hit the fan, HHF was sacked in a rather messy and unnecessary way, and then Gascoyne upped sticks and left along with some major players of his team. The Honda deal was seen as a blessing, but in reality it was nightmare. In 2002 the Honda unit ALONE weighed as much as the whole Williams rear end package (engine, gearbox, transmission...) and grenaded itself after 3 inches anyway. Hamidy would of had trouble designing a square left alone a F1 car that would work on all tracks.
Meanwhile EJ was too busy, hiring page 3 girls to drop themselves over the cars. Which is nice, but not really a thing to be doing when your team is going down the pan. When EJ finally realised the absolute balls up he made it was too late. Sponsors left, drivers were demoralised as were the back room guys and the result was that evil EJ12 and the even worse (I know its hard to imagine isn't it...) EJ13.
EJ had it all in his hands, a golden opportunity to go forth and make his mark, and he stuffed it up. Big Time.
#44
Posted 25 February 2004 - 18:57
Originally posted by ckkl
I remember that race; Fisichella was running very slowly (probably chewed up his tyres) and was weaving all around trying to block Villeneuve (who was much faster). At that moment I lost all respect for Fisichella (though I suppose I've since calmed). No doubt the Honda brass were not pleased at that moment.
In the end I think only 1 of 4 Honda runners finished the race. A disappointing showing overall.
I think that Fisi had a problem with his engine, and had to use one of the old spec Hondas.
In 2000 it was reported that Jordan spent alot of resoures building qualifying cars-i.e designing compotents that would only last for a few laps, but where very little. This was to the detriment of the race car, which was VERY heavy on tyres. It does seem to explain trulli's lack of race pace.
NeilB. Please take your head out your ass.
How can you say that the started to go downhill in 1998, right when the team started to win races? He sold part of the team to generate cash which was all reinvested into the team- and benifited in the short term. He still had full control over the team.
#45
Posted 25 February 2004 - 19:51
#46
Posted 25 February 2004 - 20:03
EJ built the team in 1998 for the future years (99 and 00) and the Win at Spa started to cause the rot. He thought that the team would natuarally evolve without as much input from him as in the past, and other managers would oversee it while he did things such as sponsor and technical deals. Which was wrong as in the end it came out as too many indians not enough chiefs to do the job and in the end the team ended up by been lost.Originally posted by eoin
NeilB. Please take your head out your ass.
How can you say that the started to go downhill in 1998, right when the team started to win races? He sold part of the team to generate cash which was all reinvested into the team- and benifited in the short term. He still had full control over the team.
#47
Posted 25 February 2004 - 23:25
Originally posted by The Stig
Trust isn“t gonna sponsor Jordan as far as I know.

That's an awesome deal they got there ! A tiny mirror instead of a big sticker in front of the sidepod. Well done Trust !

#48
Posted 25 February 2004 - 23:29

#49
Posted 26 February 2004 - 08:28
#50
Posted 26 February 2004 - 10:57
Originally posted by A3
Can anyone tell me why the hell Trust is still on the car? Assuming the picture on Jordan's website is recent:![]()
According to F1-live Trust has decided to sponsor Jordan without Verstappen.


What a deal for Jordan. Two new driver and Jos sponsor.
Wonder how Verstappen feels about this
