38 replies to this topic

[FerrariV12]

Much has been (quite rightly) made of Stefan Bellof's wet weather charge to 3rd at Monaco in 1984 - yet his teammate Martin Brundle later that year came from deep in the field at Detroit to come within a gnat's whisker of beating Nelson Piquet for the win. Yet this feat is rarely mentioned?

Now obviously, Bellof came from the very back of the pack to third, without having the full race to achieve it, and on the face of it doing it in the wet seems more heroic, but logically, surely the wet weather helped disguise his car's lack of power, a luxury not handed to Brundle in the Detroit heat?

I might well be being a bit controversial here, and I'm not actually suggesting Brundle's drive was better than Bellof's, but I'm wondering why his drive doesn't perhaps recieve the recognition it deserves? Obviously it was later stripped from the official records, but then so was Bellof's...

[KWSN - DSM]

Could be a mix of reasons really.

1) The Monaco race is also the one where Senna almost won for Toleman. And where som conspirationists want it to have been a "fix" that the flag was thrown early (although this did cost Prost the WDC).

2) Bellof was catching both of Senna and Prost at the time.

3) Bellof is dead. And sometimes we will see a driver better than he was, with rosetinted glasses and a "what would have happend if?" scenario.

4) Brundle never really amounted to anything special in F1, he had a very long career that was never quite up to what many (especially the English media) expected from him.

[LB]

Also Detroit was the race where the water/fuel/ballast contraversy came to light, thus somewhat taking the shine off Brundles superb race.

Brundle was quicker than many give credit he was probably the closest teammate that Schumacher had.

[KWSN - DSM]

Originally posted by LB
..
Brundle was quicker than many give credit he was probably the closest teammate that Schumacher had.

I would venture that to be Rubens

[jcbc3]

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM


I would venture that to be Rubens

I concur

[D-Type]

Originally posted by LB
Also Detroit was the race where the water/fuel/ballast contraversy came to light, thus somewhat taking the shine off Brundles superb race.

~

I think you've hot the nail on the head. Although it has since been virtually proven that the accusations were unjustified, at the time nobody knew so the media would have ignored the performance 'just in case'

[Vicuna]

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM
3) Bellof is dead. And sometimes we will see a driver better than he was, with rosetinted glasses and a "what would have happend if?" scenario.

With the greatest of respect to Stefan, who I saw do outstanding things in F2, I concur.

4) Brundle never really amounted to anything special in F1, he had a very long career that was never quite up to what many (especially the English media) expected from him.

A bit harsh - 12 years in F1 doesn't happen these days unless you're better than 'nothing special'

[ensign14]

Piquet was never really in trouble as he eased up towards the end. Bellof was looking good for a win.

Also, Detroit was seen as a Cosworth circuit (more so than a wet Monaco is a moot point though). Brundle should have had 3rd the following year until he was Allioted; Bellof did get a 4th.

A what if? from Monaco is if they had allowed 26 to start at Monaco, rather than 20 - Brundle would have qualified just behind Bellof. Throughout the season the 2 were pretty close.

[fausto]

Alliot VS Brundle...does anyone remember Catchpole strip on the subject?

[Mallory Dan]

Don't forget Brundle whipped Senna quite often in F3 the previous year, with, in theory, identical cars. Before his big crash in 84 (?), Brundle was very quick.

[ian senior]

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM


I would venture that to be Rubens

If you mean the most compliant, the most willing to play second fiddle, then yes, It's Rubens.

[William Dale Jr]

Originally posted by Mallory Dan
Don't forget Brundle whipped Senna quite often in F3 the previous year, with, in theory, identical cars. Before his big crash in 84 (?), Brundle was very quick.

Does Brundle still suffer problems with his feet/ankles that were a legacy of that accident?

[FerrariV12]

Thanks a lot for all the insight, I was only one year old in 1984 so needless to say I don't have any first hand knowledge of that season!

Originally posted by ensign14
A what if? from Monaco is if they had allowed 26 to start at Monaco, rather than 20 - Brundle would have qualified just behind Bellof. Throughout the season the 2 were pretty close.

One thing I remember reading a while back, is that until his famous qualifying crash where he ended up on his head, Brundle was on course to go quicker than Bellof - and of course knock his teammate off the grid completely! Wonder if he could have turned in a similar performance, seeing how evenly matched they were throughout '84, or was Bellof the more accomplished wet weather driver of the two?

[FredF1]

Originally posted by William Dale Jr


Does Brundle still suffer problems with his feet/ankles that were a legacy of that accident?

I'm sure I've heard him say that he finds running very difficult.

I've had a quick skim through 'Working The Wheel' but can't find any mention of any after effects of that crash.

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by FerrariV12
Thanks a lot for all the insight, I was only one year old in 1984 so needless to say I don't have any first hand knowledge of that season!



One thing I remember reading a while back, is that until his famous qualifying crash where he ended up on his head, Brundle was on course to go quicker than Bellof - and of course knock his teammate off the grid completely! Wonder if he could have turned in a similar performance, seeing how evenly matched they were throughout '84, or was Bellof the more accomplished wet weather driver of the two?

He might just have been able to -- look at what Martin did in the underpowered Brabham at Monaco in '89... but I think Martin would've been tidy, quick and methodical and got the car well up into the points, whereas Stefan was prepared to tiger.

I don't think I ever saw Martin going ten-tenths in F1, although he seemed more willing to in sports cars...

[KWSN - DSM]

Originally posted by ian senior


If you mean the most compliant, the most willing to play second fiddle, then yes, It's Rubens.

yada yada yada yada...

Start a thread arguing why Martin Brundle is a better F1 racer then Rubens Barichello then we can dance.

[Mohican]

Well, Barrichello and Brundle ran together in the Jordan team in 1996 (the first year of B&H sponsorship, when the cars ran in gold livery) - so who was faster ?

The only thing about the Jordans that I remember from that year is that Eddie was very quick to sign Brundle once he had sold Irvine to Ferrari - and that Brundle had THAT crash on the first corner of the first race. And that the car was not very good.

Conventional wisdom at the end of '96 was that Rubens was essentially washed up, and was lucky to find a seat with the new Stewart team for '97 - and that Irvine was better by far. This goes to show that the CW is not always right.

Ironically, Jordan had a good year in '97 with Fisichella and Schumacher. If Ralf had not pushed Giancarlo off at the first race it might have been even better.

Getting back on topic, of course Barrichello is far better than Brundle ever was.
Brundle has managed to live off the strength of his '83 F3 season (only 22 years ago) for far too long - he was a good solid driver, but that was it.

[Twin Window]

Originally posted by Mohican

Getting back on topic, of course Barrichello is far better than Brundle ever was.

If you're back OT, where's the mention of Bellof?!




















And in my opinion, Martin was waaaaaaaay better than Rubens when they were competing together. He destroyed him mentally too, which you need to do when you're team mates.

[Tomas Karlsson]

I think you've hot the nail on the head. Although it has since been virtually proven that the accusations were unjustified, at the time nobody knew so the media would have ignored the performance 'just in case'

Please D-type, or someone else. Is there a thread that can explain the ballast-story for me. I was a Autosport-subscriber at the time, but I never really understood what happened. It was so confusing, with water-tanks and lead-balls and everything... Has someone found the truth and nothing but the truth in that soap-opera.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Tomas Karlsson
It was so confusing, with water-tanks and lead-balls and everything... Has someone found the truth and nothing but the truth in that soap-opera.

It was deliberately confusing because FISA changed the charges against Tyrrell before condemning them.

Real reason for the Tyrrell Affair: FISA and the teams wanted to change the rules on maximum fuel tanks for 1985. It needed unanimity from the teams. The turbo teams were worried about fuel consumption. Tyrrell was not. A rule change needed unanimity. Tyrrell was against. No change possible.

Then Tyrrell is slung out of the championship. It is a non-team. Suddenly unanimity. Rule changed.

Then Tyrrell let back in.

The charges against Tyrrell were, IIRC, that it took on ballast during a race to keep above the minimum weight limit. You were not allowed to add anything that was not fixed to the car and could be removed without tools. So Tyrrell forcefed ballbearings into the car at a tyre stop suspended in water. You could not get the ballbearings out without tools so the addition was legal.

So at the hearing the charges were switched to illegal refuelling. FISA declared that a sample of the water taken from the Tyrrell suggested it was really fuel. Eventually FISA disclosed that the amount of "fuel" was about a teaspoonful. Nothing that could have affected performance. More a legacy of the water tank once having fuel in it.

There was also a charge of a breach of the flat bottom regs - because there was a hole for a screw in it or something.

Whole thing stank.

[Tomas Karlsson]

Well as I see it, I think that the Tyrrell ball-bearings had a bit of a bad smell too. I understand that the team found a loop-hole in the rules, but I can't see them as misunderstood angels. On the other hand there were more leaking water-tanks around...
But FISA obviously couldn't handle the affair and I think you are right about that there were other things behind the rule changes. It was a pity, I really liked the David against Goliath perspective the Tyrrell-team gave that year and with two really brilliant drivers.
What really happened to the results? As I understand it, Tyrrell and the drivers lost it's WC points. But did the race-results stand?

[renzo_zorzi]

i think the tyrell 012 was one of the best designs of that firm for quite some time. it looked good and lean. until 1989/90 all the follow ups were neither pleasing the eye nor scoring good results. the bulky 87 model was the worst imo.

the whole affair was summed up well. tyrell lost all points that year but so did gerhard berger and jo gartner, incidentially both austrians, due to some stupid regulations of fia. their teams had not entered two cars officially, so those drivers were stripped off their championship points. well i guess fia regulations and law-inforcment didtn improve much over the last 20 years.

[FerrariV12]

Originally posted by Tomas Karlsson
As I understand it, Tyrrell and the drivers lost it's WC points. But did the race-results stand?

No.

Arnoux officially got 3rd at Monaco, de Angelis 2nd at Detroit.

[Tomas Karlsson]

I wonder if Bellof and Brundle had to return their trophies, like doped athletes have had to do with their olympic medals...

[rallen]

I suppose people view Bellof differently because of his sad demise but if Brundle had never raced again after 1984, would he have been viewed the same way? I was two young for this era - did Senna fear Brundle? did he in fact fear Bellof?

[Collombin]

did Senna fear Brundle?

Certainly enough in their F3 days to drive him off the road.

[Barry Boor]

I always got the impression that Senna didn't 'fear' anybody. Except perhaps his God.

[Arjan de Roos]

I suppose people view Bellof differently because of his sad demise but if Brundle had never raced again after 1984, would he have been viewed the same way? I was two young for this era - did Senna fear Brundle? did he in fact fear Bellof?

The young wolves in F1 in 1984 were quite some class. There haven't been so much graduates in F1 that had so much promising. Bellof, Brundle and Senna all entered F1 with a lot of expectations from those who watched. Especially Senna as he was mentioned to have won virtually all races before he came into F1.

I watched the Monaco race and one could not miss Bellof's spectacular charge. Of course Senna was quick too and nearly lapped Prost. The minute the race was over hell broke loose: Ickx-Porsche-McLaren-Prost etc. Quite a shame as conditions were really far from Mediterranean.
But Senna struck me as fanatic, nearly climbing out of his car while cheering for what was a great 2nd. Many ink was printed on this all in the weeks after the race. In that Bellof’s charge was basically lost.

Come Detroit and Brundle’s great drive, it was tainted as on the same evening (as said) the famous ballast was found in his tank. From then on Tyrrell was in a specific corner.
Also with the Tyrrell’s being non-turbo until mid 1985, B&B could only shine on some occasion (like Bellof in Detroit!) .
Senna did maybe not fear them, but he was aware of them being future threats. It’s a shame Bellof never got a decent car to show his real speed.

[D-Type]

The young wolves in F1 in 1984 were quite some class. There haven't been so much graduates in F1 that had so much promising. Bellof, Brundle and Senna all entered F1 with a lot of expectations from those who watched. Especially Senna as he was mentioned to have won virtually all races before he came into F1.

I watched the Monaco race and one could not miss Bellof's spectacular charge. Of course Senna was quick too and nearly lapped Prost. The minute the race was over hell broke loose: Ickx-Porsche-McLaren-Prost etc. Quite a shame as conditions were really far from Mediterranean.
But Senna struck me as fanatic, nearly climbing out of his car while cheering for what was a great 2nd. Many ink was printed on this all in the weeks after the race. In that Bellof’s charge was basically lost.

Come Detroit and Brundle’s great drive, it was tainted as on the same evening (as said) the famous ballast was found in his tank. From then on Tyrrell was in a specific corner.
Also with the Tyrrell’s being non-turbo until mid 1985, B&B could only shine on some occasion (like Bellof in Detroit!) .
Senna did maybe not fear them, but he was aware of them being future threats. It’s a shame Bellof never got a decent car to show his real speed.

Not so. Senna was not in the lead and hence was not in a position to lap Prost. Prost was leading the race and Senna was catching him and only took the lead on the lap the red flag was shown(ie the lap that doesn't count as the rules at the time said the result was the standings at the end of the previous lap)

Edited by D-Type, 16 April 2012 - 19:27.

[MCS]

The young wolves in F1 in 1984 were quite some class. There haven't been so much graduates in F1 that had so much promising. Bellof, Brundle and Senna all entered F1 with a lot of expectations from those who watched. Especially Senna as he was mentioned to have won virtually all races before he came into F1.

I watched the Monaco race and one could not miss Bellof's spectacular charge. Of course Senna was quick too and nearly lapped Prost. The minute the race was over hell broke loose: Ickx-Porsche-McLaren-Prost etc. Quite a shame as conditions were really far from Mediterranean.
But Senna struck me as fanatic, nearly climbing out of his car while cheering for what was a great 2nd. Many ink was printed on this all in the weeks after the race. In that Bellof’s charge was basically lost.

Come Detroit and Brundle’s great drive, it was tainted as on the same evening (as said) the famous ballast was found in his tank. From then on Tyrrell was in a specific corner.
Also with the Tyrrell’s being non-turbo until mid 1985, B&B could only shine on some occasion (like Bellof in Detroit!) .
Senna did maybe not fear them, but he was aware of them being future threats. It’s a shame Bellof never got a decent car to show his real speed.

Also read one Tommy Byrne: Senna was clearly psyched by the "knacker from Dundalk" - ten out of ten to rallen for finding these old threads!

[rallen]

Also read one Tommy Byrne: Senna was clearly psyched by the "knacker from Dundalk" - ten out of ten to rallen for finding these old threads!

Thanks MCS! I do spend far too much time reading old threads, I just hold back on asking too many questions!

Perhaps 'feared' was the wrong word to use with Senna, but I get the impression he liked to create an atmosphere between him and a rival, a type of negative energy and hostility to compete - he certainly had a strong rivalry with Brundle in F3 - did this continue in F1? I would have thought Bellof would be the type of driver - fast, brave and very very quick that he would like to mark the card of. Was there any needle between them?

For the class of 1984, why did Brundle and Bellof end up with better drivers than Senna? or was the Toleman seen as the better seat of the two.

Anyway going back to the original topic, it is interesting how Brundle's driving in 1984 was totally overshadowed by history.

[Les]

I don't know if its at all significant but its interesting that Brundle, Bellof and Senna tested for McLaren together at the end of 83. There's well known footage of Senna at the test but its overlooked that Bellof and Brundle took part as well. Bellof's Wikipedia states that: 'Bellof first tested a Formula One car towards the end of 1983, when he joined the top two drivers from that season's British Formula Three Championship – Ayrton Senna and Martin Brundle – in testing for McLaren at Silverstone, where Bellof managed to damage the gearbox before Brundle's opportunity behind the wheel.' I believe that Senna was fastest that day although he had tested an F1 car before with Williams.

[Arjan de Roos]

Not so. Senna was not in the lead and hence was not in a position to lap Prost. Prost was leading the race and Senna was catching him and only took the lead on the lap the red flag was shown(ie the lap that doesn't count as the rules at the time said the result was the standings at the end of the previous lap)

Indeed, I wonder why I wrote lapped, and not overtook.

[Arjan de Roos]

Also read one Tommy Byrne: Senna was clearly psyched by the "knacker from Dundalk"

I did, and a good read. Senna always looked very worried and alerted. Also in his first days in F1. Just not sure if he really feared his opponents, at least he was trying everything he could to be faster than them. I don't know if fear was the driver, I guess it was more endless ambition. And yes, Byrne was on the radar too.

[Mallory Dan]

Rallen, I think for the '84 season the Toleman seat was seen as better than the Tyrrell. From about mid-83 the Tolemans really started to come on strong, and by then turbos were much better than the old Cossie.

So with Tyrrell having no turbo, and the Hart looking quite decent, I think Senna's car was seen as a much better prospect than the, underpowered and relatively underfunded Tyrrell.

[LittleChris]

Also, weren't Toleman the only team prepared to pay Senna to drive ($100K ?) without him having to bring sponsorship ? Regarding the McLaren test, Senna managed to negotiate an extra run at the end of the day so had more time in the car than both Brundle & Bellof

[DampMongoose]

Senna was more than concerned about having a quick British colleague at Lotus... to the extent that he had it written in his contract that Warwick couldn't drive for the team! Our press never really forgave him for that...

Why he wasn't fazed by The Earl of Dumfries and then Nakajima though I'm not so sure...

[LittleChris]

Senna was more than concerned about having a quick British colleague at Lotus... to the extent that he had it written in his contract that Warwick couldn't drive for the team! Our press never really forgave him for that...

Why he wasn't fazed by The Earl of Dumfries and then Nakajima though I'm not so sure...

To be fair, he said it was because he felt Lotus couldn't adequately prepare cars for 2 top drivers. To some extent this was borne out by Dumfries' record of 9 retirements in 16 races.

[DampMongoose]

To be fair, he said it was because he felt Lotus couldn't adequately prepare cars for 2 top drivers. To some extent this was borne out by Dumfries' record of 9 retirements in 16 races.

Yes but based on how well Warwick performed in the Renault the previous year (unlucky not to win in Brazil) a British team behind a fast British driver... who would have gained the superiority early on? Number 1 status wouldn't have been so forthcoming for Senna and like you say, they probably couldn't manage 2 cars with the same level of performance, but Senna did not want to risk the team backing his team mate.

Warwick was unlucky like a few others in that he made one bad decision and it scuppered his F1 career, if only he'd gone to Williams not stayed on at Renault... Mansell won twice in that car and he was not as quick as Warwick at that point in his career!