31 replies to this topic

[Jerome]

On this Forum, many have expressed fears about the dominance of manufacturer teams in F1, because, as is stated, as 'easily' as they have come in, they can go out, leaving the sport in ruins thereafter. The reason for such a quick 'out' is usually thought to be financial reasons (the manufacturer doesn't sell enough cars, has to cut back, etc), or so called performance goals (we can't win, we already have won enough, etc)

But recently, I have thought about a much more plausible reason for a manuafacturer team to withdraw quickly... and that is fatalities, ie dead drivers. I was thinking: 'How come so many carproducers like Toyota, BMW, later perhaps Hyundai, are willing in a meagere economy to step into this sport? Why weren't they that happy go lucky ten years ago, when there was an economic hausse?'
The reason is, I gathered, that Formula 1 for ten years hasn't known fatalities since Ratzenberger and Aerton Senna. Lets face it, for the hardcore racing fans fatalities is an 'neccessary evil', something that goes with the territory (although... I come back on that later). But those fatalities the hardcore fans accepted with a sense of fatalistic acceptance, were unaccaptable for companies that direct their attention at civil society as a whole.

To take myself for example (I am not a manufacturer, but okay) Ten years ago when I told people I was a motorracing fan, people would usually react in horror. 'Jerome, you? You love music, art, books. In Motorracing people get hurt, get killed. How on earth can a decent person enjoy that!'

The last five years, I did not have to have such discussions.

So the question is: Will fatalities in F1 be dangerous for the involvement of the manufacturer teams?



PS: While I was writing this threadstart, I came to some disturbing conclusions about my own reaction to fatalities in F1. I have had an interest in the sport since 1973 or so, when I was very young, but every five years or so I inexplicably drifted in other directions, to come back, to drift away etc. But the strange coincidence is... Peterson was killed at Monza... I stopped being interested in F1 for a while... De Angelis died... again I drifted away... Senna ... again. The strange this that when Villeneuve died, one of my favourite drivers of all time, I didn't stop watching... strange....

[Clatter]

I dont think it has anything to do with deaths. Apart from one tragic weekend F1 has been free from drivers deaths for a long time.

I think the reason that so many manufacturers have entered the sport over the last few years is because the rewards for doing so are greater than ever before. That has nothing to do with potential sales, as I don't believe F1 makes a difference in the showroom, but has everyting to do with the business that BE has built around F1. Thats why we are also starting to see the advent of 2 team teams.

[Jerome]

Clatter,


Don't you think it's a big difference between a race orientated make as Ferrari losing a driver (like they lost Villeneuve) and a public orientated team like Toyota?

Just suppose there is a nasty accident with one of the Toyota's. Dead driver, or a terribly burned or wounded one... imagine the shockwave that sents for and through the image of Toyota cars?

One example: do you know that stranded airplanes on airports are cleaned of their company logo's as quickly as possible? The aircompanies don't want the bad publicity. And that's just a stranded airplane, not a crashed one.

So my question is not only if they enter the sport because of the absence of deaths, but first and foremost: will they not leave more easily that teams like Ferrari, Williams and McLaren when somebody gets killed?

Coming to think of it: how many major sponsors have stayed with a team AFTER one of the drivers got killed?

Rindt - Gold Leaf - left for good
Peterson - Monza - JPS left for a while
Senna - Imola - Rothmans left for good (didn't they? Or am I very much mistaken?)

Ofcourse these companies all will cite other, perfectly sound reasons to leave... but still...

[Don Speekingleesh]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen

Senna - Imola - Rothmans left for good (didn't they? Or am I very much mistaken?)

They left at the end of 1997, and the company advertised another of their brands for 1998 before leaving altogether.

[Jerome]

Don Speekingleesh : Thanx matey!

[Garagiste]

Also, gold leaf and JPS are (were) both Imperial Tobacco brands, so they didn't leave Lotus after Rindt, just swapped to a more fashionable brand of the time.

[xype]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
Just suppose there is a nasty accident with one of the Toyota's. Dead driver, or a terribly burned or wounded one... imagine the shockwave that sents for and through the image of Toyota cars?

As stupid as the public might be, I think the people still can understand a difference between a Toyota road car and a car designed to run around circles at great speeds. If such an accident would happen, I doubt you'd see any big hoopla - unless the car gets airborne and sent into a grandstand and killing many innocents. The drivers themselves are known to do a dangerous job.

[zac510]

I think it is perfectly reasonable to look at recent deaths in WRC and American openwheel racing (sorry I'm not too clued up on recent fatalities in those two series) for evidence of how the manufacturer would react.

[Jerome]

A good question, Zac, about WRC. I think in the last ten years many manufacturers DID withdraw because of fatalities in Rallying, it's just that they never would admit it was because of that. (Otherwise they would have to convey why they went into the sport in the first place)

XYPE: Ofcourse it's true that the public knows the difference between racecars (road or rally) and their cars. Renault is not selling more cars now, for instance! But that's not the sole impact an accident in motorracing has, just as an airtraffic accident doesn't neccesarily work that way (people don't start flying less, when there has been an accident...unless with that specific airline).

If a Toyota driver gets killed, and there is some lengthy discussion afterwards about the accident (like with Senna or De Angelis, or Peterson), the name of the car will resonate through the media, even if the accident has nothing to do with the car itself.

'Driver X who was killed in his TOYOTA...' 'blabla the consequences of the accident of the TOYOTA-driver...'

The media will (and this is a journalist speaking) will try to tell this story by using the name in the story they think is best know to the public at large. Even if that means the name of the driver will somehow fade somewhat in the story.

Garagiste: Did they switch brands to a more fashionable brand or did they switch to a brand which was less contaminated? Not I think one way or the another but advertising and marketing are as the Germans say 'fingerspitzengefuhl', feeling the market with your fingertips. And fatal accidents, well...

[Jacaré]

I think car manufacturers are already in the unenviable position of having to deal with the fact that people die when driving cars. Safety is high priority for car manufacturers. They are realistic and pragmatic about the risks of driving, on the streets, and on the circuits. They would see F1 as the ultimate safety challenge. In their everyday business they can't walk away from their responsibilities for driver safety and the same would apply in F1.

[Talisman]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
Coming to think of it: how many major sponsors have stayed with a team AFTER one of the drivers got killed?

Senna - Imola - Rothmans left for good (didn't they? Or am I very much mistaken?)

Rothmans stayed on for several more years after Senna's death, but perhaps more relevant to the question you were asking is that Renault also stayed on long (in F1 terms) after his demise in a car with their name plastered all over it.

Perhaps what is more interesting after Senna's death is that TV viewing figures actually rose after Imola, although whether this was some kind of ghoulish interest in the sport after his death or because of the MS/DH fight isn't clear.

I don't think driver deaths would affect a sponsor or engine supplier's interest in the sport unless there was some extraordinary personal link between key personnel and the driver.

[Jerome]

True...

Though, again, I think there is a difference between a title sponsor of a team and the make that is the sponsor, if you catch my drift...

But again, an interesting question. Carmakers want to be known to the public as 'safe' (except perhaps for Jaguar, Ferrari, Lotus who want to be known as 'safe'. I think that it depends what image the carmaker wants to portray. If everyone thinks Lexus is a bit of a dull cartype, then a casualty wouldn't hurt so much, because the make wants to get rid of the dull image in the first place...

[schuy]

Jerome,

That is a very interesting concept, I wouldn't bet against it.

I believe though, that beyond deaths, the involvement of more main-stream marques in F1 these days has to do with the sport in general(and F1 in particular) being much more civilised, high-class and socially-acceptable. Lack of deaths surely helps that mission.

[Jerome]

Schuy:

And what do you think about a big company like Toyota, familycars and so forth, in case of a fatality...imagine, Trulli leading the wc, and then... I shudder of the thought... don't like speculating like that, but...

I don't think that a team like Toyota would withdraw immediately... I think that if they are in a meeting about going on or stopping... they will tend to be stopping...

[Talisman]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
True...

Though, again, I think there is a difference between a title sponsor of a team and the make that is the sponsor, if you catch my drift...

But again, an interesting question. Carmakers want to be known to the public as 'safe' (except perhaps for Jaguar, Ferrari, Lotus who want to be known as 'safe'. I think that it depends what image the carmaker wants to portray. If everyone thinks Lexus is a bit of a dull cartype, then a casualty wouldn't hurt so much, because the make wants to get rid of the dull image in the first place...

Renault found themselves dragged into the quagmire of a court 'investigation' that was held in Italy for several years after the death of Ayrton Senna, they were publicly connected with his death in a very nasty and ultimately baseless way.

Also I find the suggestion that a brand wouldn't mind having a driver get killed in order to spice up its image rather tasteless....

[BorderReiver]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
Schuy:

And what do you think about a big company like Toyota, familycars and so forth, in case of a fatality...imagine, Trulli leading the wc, and then... I shudder of the thought... don't like speculating like that, but...

I don't think that a team like Toyota would withdraw immediately... I think that if they are in a meeting about going on or stopping... they will tend to be stopping...

With the exception of the 1955 Le Mans disaster, racing fatalities have NEVER lead to a major manufacturer pulling out of a racing series.

That's all there is to it.

[Jerome]

Also I find the suggestion that a brand wouldn't mind having a driver get killed in order to spice up its image rather tasteless....
It is... but I know the corporate way of thinking... it's not that they would not MIND someone being killed... but the directors of a brand like Marlboro or Budweiser will get much less flak from their shareholders if they invest in a dangerous sport than for example Ahold, Coca Cola, or Nestle. Why? Because the shareholders of Ahold would say in case of a fatality: 'These kinds of activities don't belong to our company!'

I didn't mean to be rude. I was just thinking how decisions about these things come to order.

With the exception of the 1955 Le Mans disaster, racing fatalities have NEVER lead to a major manufacturer pulling out of a racing series.

That's all there is to it.

Well, there I have serious doubts if that is an established fact. As mentioned before, I know the corporate mind. And they always hang up bullpoop stories why they start one activity and end another. Very, very seldom, they will say: 'It was a mistake. Our shareholders are angry with us. We withdraw from this or that activity.' No, it is always: 'We have reached our goals.' 'The market is changed.' Or whatever...

[Henri Greuter]

I know of another case when it didn't involve a fatality but a car maker stepping out instantly.

Mercedes: Le Mans 1999
Webber and Dumbreck flew skyhigh in three separate accidents. But even afte ACO cured the problem Mercedes had by eliminating the `Mercedes Hump` (no problem for other cars that year and in previous years) they never dared to show up anymore.
And I tell you, my respect for Mercedes will grow again to decent levels when they have the guts to show upo at Le Mans again and take on the competition out there instead of hiding themselves within DTM where they have Herr Aufrecht to help them out to show off good again whatever competition there is.


I don't think fatalities only are reasons for withdrawal. Peugeot didn't bow out of Rallying this year and neither did Lancia in either '85 or '86.

Ford received heavy flak after Indy '64 when Sachs and McDonald got killed in that horribly fiery accident which was blamed to Ford because of their insistance on using gasoline in the race. That it likely would not have made much of a difference for Sachs and likely McDonals either if these cars had been methanol fueled was largely ignored. It didn't stop Ford to continue racing within USAC...

And when Jeff Krossnoff was killed in '96 in a Toyota powered Indycar they didn't leave the series either...

I think it has more to do with the fact how publicly a mishap happens, be it fatal or not. Three flying '99 Merc's is a good example of that....


Henri

[Garagiste]

Yes, and also why the accident happened - fatal or otherwise. The flying Mercs were demonstrably down to a design fault with that car, which is seriously embarassing to the manufacturer.
Had it been down to driver error, tyre failure or just plain bad luck I'd bet they would still be in there.

[Henri Greuter]

Originally posted by Garagiste
Yes, and also why the accident happened - fatal or otherwise. The flying Mercs were demonstrably down to a design fault with that car, which is seriously embarassing to the manufacturer.
Had it been down to driver error, tyre failure or just plain bad luck I'd bet they would still be in there.

Most funny part about that Merc Echec:

The Merc Home magazine was full coverage aboute the upcoming Le Mans race before the race, once the race was done not a syllabe about the event anymore!
I have heard from model builders that Mercedes even refused any cooperation and permission to have a model of that Le Mans '99 car being released, either diecast or kit.
And that the remaining cars were cut up and never being shown on public anywhere anymore....
You can deal with an embarassment in a more diligent manner....


Henri

[Jerome]

Well Henri,

I wasn't aware how Merc reacted to the Le Mans echec, but now you have shown exactly how 'straightforward' (haha) corporate companies react to stuff like this.

Previous posters: indeed, very important is how an accident would happen. What time of year, even.

Or, it doesn't even take a ugly accident. It's just the way the image changes of a sport - that can happen with an deadly accident, or with something else. I wonder how F1 would have coped if all the drug trafficking and money laundering of then and now would be unveiled.

[Jerome]

And yeah, Henri, a question:

Is there a difference image-wise between being killed in a in a Toyota powered Indycar or a Toyata-car? Me thinks so

[Henri Greuter]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
And yeah, Henri, a question:

Is there a difference image-wise between being killed in a in a Toyota powered Indycar or a Toyata-car? Me thinks so

Likely there was indeed a difference but Toyota entered Indycar in 1996 and the team Krosnoff drove for was selected to participate with Toyota. The chassis might have been a straightforward Reynard but nevertheless, there was some support and some cooperation between Toyota and the team. They were not just the engine suppliers since the team had bought/selected Toyota for their engines. No all out factory team either but for sure: more than just a customer.

What also may have reflected badly on the Krosnoff Incident was that it was the first fatal accident in a very, very long time of CART racing. If my memory is correct, Jim Hickman atr Milwaukee in 1992 who was the last fatally injured CART driver. There had been heavily injered drivers in recent years but no fatalities. I ignore the Brayton fatality since that was IRL and by then an entirely different series.
Having said that, the accident was no fault of either Toyota and/or Krosnoff and just a piece of bad luck.

But also because of Toyota doing not good at all in that debut year and then the fatality, it may well have been used as an excuse to bow out after all. But they didn't and were reworded for that eventually.

Henri

[Jerome]

Good point Henri

How well a team (or involved driver) is doing would ofcourse influence the reception of an ugly event. I always wondered if anything in the regulations would've changed had only Ratzenberger died that fatefull day on Imola...

[BRG]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
A good question, Zac, about WRC. I think in the last ten years many manufacturers DID withdraw because of fatalities in Rallying, it's just that they never would admit it was because of that.

Who are you thinking of? Apart from this year's sad loss of co-driver Michael Parks, I cannot remember the last WRC fatality - was it as long ago as Henri Toivonen?

[Henri Greuter]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
Good point Henri

How well a team (or involved driver) is doing would ofcourse influence the reception of an ugly event. I always wondered if anything in the regulations would've changed had only Ratzenberger died that fatefull day on Imola...

I wish I could say `yes` but I don''t think it would have been.
Tamburello had not been fatal for Piquet and Berger though the Berger accident had been far more horrible to watch. (fire, monocoque split open)
Many more things happened that weekend that, had any of them been the only incident of the weekend, would have been a major topic and would have been a cause for sorrow and worries about safety and F1's reputation. Almost all of them, except poor Roland became insignificant because of Senna.

Henri

[Buttoneer]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
I know of another case when it didn't involve a fatality but a car maker stepping out instantly.

Mercedes: Le Mans 1999
Webber and Dumbreck flew skyhigh in three separate accidents. But even afte ACO cured the problem Mercedes had by eliminating the `Mercedes Hump` (no problem for other cars that year and in previous years) they never dared to show up anymore.

A nice set of photo's of the Webber accident.

[HardRock]

I'm one who believes that car manufacturers are necessary in Formula 1. They have the resources, the technology and I don't think this has to do with fatalities at all.
There are more fatalities in other motor sports and as a mater of fact in other sports.

[Jerome]

Yes Hardrock, and there are much more serious accidents for motorbike riders (percentagewise, not absolutely ofcourse) than for cardrivers. It comes with the territory, they would say. Not accepted but... but driving cars has much more self delusion... and therefore the impact of a caraccident is always bigger than a motorbike accident, on the race course or on the public roads

[schuy]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
Schuy:

And what do you think about a big company like Toyota, familycars and so forth, in case of a fatality...imagine, Trulli leading the wc, and then... I shudder of the thought... don't like speculating like that, but...

I don't think that a team like Toyota would withdraw immediately... I think that if they are in a meeting about going on or stopping... they will tend to be stopping...

I like your concept, and the 1999 Merc incident does indeed strengthen the idea that car companies are wary of common Joe's idea of car-racing, but whether it is something that worries them so much as to choosing not to particapate in F1 is something they so far keep as a secret...

[Jerome]

The strange this is...

Three Mercedes cars flipped on Le Mans... all three drivers came out unscathed (they did, didn't they?)

And still they somehow saw it as bad advertisement!

Ah well...

;)

[Henri Greuter]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
The strange this is...

Three Mercedes cars flipped on Le Mans... all three drivers came out unscathed (they did, didn't they?)

And still they somehow saw it as bad advertisement!

Ah well...

;)

That was because Mercedes had been runaway champions within FIA GT1 in the previous two years. Only hiccup was a double early retirement in Le Mans 1998.
And they had practices and tested like crazy with the cars, even did highspeed tests in the USA on the Miami Oval and the car had done fine everywhere. So they were among the favorites, if not the clear favorites, at least among the GT1 cars.
Bet then came Le Mans....

From utter success within GT1 to nearly lethal miscontraptions for the race for which they were purposely designed....
I can understand Mercedes feelings about all this but still, the manner how they dealt with this failure was a PR nightmare being carried out in a cowardish manner.

Henri