The most rejectful F1 moment ever in your opinion

[roblo97]

In terms of comedy value then Pele and the flag comes near the top. In terms of despicability, and it's never been proven, but the way Benetton, Briatore and Schumacher waged their 1994 campaign was beyond the pale. At least, up to a point, Piquet Jr could argue he was just doing as he was told but I believe Schumacher was complicit in some of the technical irregularites that the B194 seemed to benefit from.

I'm pretty sure the B194 had a traction control system of some kind.

[CoopsII]

Senna thought so too.

[Wallio]

In terms of comedy value then Pele and the flag comes near the top. In terms of despicability, and it's never been proven, but the way Benetton, Briatore and Schumacher waged their 1994 campaign was beyond the pale. At least, up to a point, Piquet Jr could argue he was just doing as he was told but I believe Schumacher was complicit in some of the technical irregularites that the B194 seemed to benefit from.

I'm pretty sure the B194 had a traction control system of some kind.

If you're referring to the infamous "Option 13" on the B194's ECU it was actually Launch Control (also banned). Benetton claimed that it was simply a leftover piece of coding from the software used in the B193 and all its variants (going back to the discussion on B-Specs in another thread, the B193 had a 4-wheel steer C-Spec!)

The FIA, however, found that while it wasn't out in the open so to speak, it was able to be enabled (great English there by me) without too much trouble. However, they could not prove Benetton was actually using it in the race. And having gone soft on McLaren for running a fully automatic gearbox, they couldn't really throw the book at the Benetton.

However, its ominous name of Option 13 (or is that just me being my usual superstitious self?) and the fact that Benetton took months after Senna's death to provide the ECUs that were requested after Imola, makes one wonder.

[CoopsII]

There was also the refuelling thing, where someone removed part of the hose unit to speed up the process and thus give another small advantage which we only learned about after the team tried to serve up roast Verstappen.

[Wallio]

There was also the refuelling thing, where someone removed part of the hose unit to speed up the process and thus give another small advantage which we only learned about after the team tried to serve up roast Verstappen.

That actually was legal. Larrousse was doing it too. The hose company told teams to remove it, then backed away with the Boss went up.

[Rob Dylan]

Just rewatched the 2009 Singapore GP and watching the two Toro Rossos come into the pits and retire right next to each other made me laugh quite a lot. Of course what happened to the Arrows in Spain 1998 was even sillier.

That's funny, I watched that Singapore race recently too :O

Their fuel hose didn't work on one of the pitstops, then they both retired anyway with different problems at the same time, a few laps after Webber's brakes failed on-track. And while this had been happening Vettel got a penalty for pitlane speeding which took him out of contention for the win or a podium.

All this on a track Red Bull should have dominated XD

[dr-baker]

And having gone soft on McLaren for running a fully automatic gearbox

I don't remember that controversy. Could you add more detail please?

[Miguel98]

And having gone soft on McLaren for running a fully automatic gearbox

I don't remember that controversy. Could you add more detail please?

When Alliot raced for Larrousse, he noticed that his car didn't had a fully automatic gearbox, which was proven to have been used during the San Marino Grand Prix, by Mika Häkkinen's McLaren. But as Benetton, they went unpunished.

[dr-baker]

And having gone soft on McLaren for running a fully automatic gearbox

I don't remember that controversy. Could you add more detail please?

When Alliot raced for Larrousse, he noticed that his car didn't had a fully automatic gearbox, which was proven to have been used during the San Marino Grand Prix, by Mika Häkkinen's McLaren. But as Benetton, they went unpunished.

Thanks for sharing that snippet. I really was not aware of that incident previously (it was not a story I had heard previously and had forgotten).

[Wallio]

And having gone soft on McLaren for running a fully automatic gearbox

I don't remember that controversy. Could you add more detail please?

When Alliot raced for Larrousse, he noticed that his car didn't had a fully automatic gearbox, which was proven to have been used during the San Marino Grand Prix, by Mika Häkkinen's McLaren. But as Benetton, they went unpunished.

^This, Thank you Miguel.

The way it went down was epically rejectful. Alliot basically said something to the press along the lines of "People say the technology gap is too great in F1, and they may be right, here at Larrousse, I actually have to change gear myself!" The FIA jumped on the comment, and both Alliot and McLaren "clarified" the remarks, but it was too late. It must have been on the McLaren for some time, as in an interview once, Michael Andretti cited the fully auto box as being a major change compared to CART. He had them disable it, IIRC.

Of course that lead to the current rule that the driver must be in control of the gear changes, which then lead to issues when Brawn and Newey developed the first "seamless" boxes. RBR had to actually so Charlie Whiting the telemetry to prove there was a break in drive (however minuet). Of course in modern F1 boxes a driver merely "request" a gear change, the car can overrule him. But that's another can of worms......

[mario]

And having gone soft on McLaren for running a fully automatic gearbox

I don't remember that controversy. Could you add more detail please?

When Alliot raced for Larrousse, he noticed that his car didn't had a fully automatic gearbox, which was proven to have been used during the San Marino Grand Prix, by Mika Häkkinen's McLaren. But as Benetton, they went unpunished.

^This, Thank you Miguel.

The way it went down was epically rejectful. Alliot basically said something to the press along the lines of "People say the technology gap is too great in F1, and they may be right, here at Larrousse, I actually have to change gear myself!" The FIA jumped on the comment, and both Alliot and McLaren "clarified" the remarks, but it was too late. It must have been on the McLaren for some time, as in an interview once, Michael Andretti cited the fully auto box as being a major change compared to CART. He had them disable it, IIRC.

Of course that lead to the current rule that the driver must be in control of the gear changes, which then lead to issues when Brawn and Newey developed the first "seamless" boxes. RBR had to actually so Charlie Whiting the telemetry to prove there was a break in drive (however minuet). Of course in modern F1 boxes a driver merely "request" a gear change, the car can overrule him. But that's another can of worms......

My understanding is that, technically, the system McLaren were using in 1994 wasn't a fully automatic system, though it was in breach of the regulations.

As far as I am aware, their system was officially classed as a "pre-selection" mechanism: the driver would still have to manually actuate the lever to shift down, but the software used to control the shift would only allow the gear change to occur when the revs dropped below a predetermined optimal shift point. The driver could therefore request as many downshifts as he liked as he hit the brakes for a corner, as the gearbox would then decide when to shift down as the revs dropped.
It was that aspect of their design that McLaren tried to use as their defence in that instance - their argument was that the driver still had control over the downshift because he had to request the number of downshifts he wanted (the car would not automatically downshift by itself). As you can imagine, the FIA's decision was to reject that on the basis that although the driver did technically have to request the downshift, because that was not simultaneous with the action of changing the gear, the driver wasn't fully in control of the shift and therefore the gearbox wasn't acceptable.

I think that the main reason why the McLaren case is overlooked is because the FIA held their inquiry into McLaren's gearbox on the same day as they investigated Benetton for the fuel rig fire, with the much more dramatic second case dominating the headlines. McLaren's case was also a case where the FIA was somewhat discrete in their judgement - which was basically along the lines of "we will not take any further action against you so long as you change the gearbox immediately".

Furthermore, there was also a separate case involving Ferrari rumbling on in the background too - I believe that Ferrari were accused of using traction control during that season, which was again resolved by the FIA along the lines of "we'll drop the charges if you change the car", since the Benetton case was the dominant one that season.
In fact, Ferrari were in trouble a few times that season - the other case involving them was over the FIA's mid season orders to cut holes in the airboxes to reduce the air ram effect, therefore slowing the cars down slightly by reducing the power of the engines slightly. I believe it was ibsey who pointed out that Ferrari's initial design circumvented the intention of that ruling by putting the holes in a position that had relatively little impact on the air ram effect, but was still technically legal - I think that they only used that configuration for one or two races before the FIA made them change it by changing the scruitineering requirements.

[Wallio]

My understanding is that, technically, the system McLaren were using in 1994 wasn't a fully automatic system, though it was in breach of the regulations.

As far as I am aware, their system was officially classed as a "pre-selection" mechanism: the driver would still have to manually actuate the lever to shift down, but the software used to control the shift would only allow the gear change to occur when the revs dropped below a predetermined optimal shift point. The driver could therefore request as many downshifts as he liked as he hit the brakes for a corner, as the gearbox would then decide when to shift down as the revs dropped.
It was that aspect of their design that McLaren tried to use as their defence in that instance - their argument was that the driver still had control over the downshift because he had to request the number of downshifts he wanted (the car would not automatically downshift by itself). As you can imagine, the FIA's decision was to reject that on the basis that although the driver did technically have to request the downshift, because that was not simultaneous with the action of changing the gear, the driver wasn't fully in control of the shift and therefore the gearbox wasn't acceptable.

I think that the main reason why the McLaren case is overlooked is because the FIA held their inquiry into McLaren's gearbox on the same day as they investigated Benetton for the fuel rig fire, with the much more dramatic second case dominating the headlines. McLaren's case was also a case where the FIA was somewhat discrete in their judgement - which was basically along the lines of "we will not take any further action against you so long as you change the gearbox immediately".

Furthermore, there was also a separate case involving Ferrari rumbling on in the background too - I believe that Ferrari were accused of using traction control during that season, which was again resolved by the FIA along the lines of "we'll drop the charges if you change the car", since the Benetton case was the dominant one that season.
In fact, Ferrari were in trouble a few times that season - the other case involving them was over the FIA's mid season orders to cut holes in the airboxes to reduce the air ram effect, therefore slowing the cars down slightly by reducing the power of the engines slightly. I believe it was ibsey who pointed out that Ferrari's initial design circumvented the intention of that ruling by putting the holes in a position that had relatively little impact on the air ram effect, but was still technically legal - I think that they only used that configuration for one or two races before the FIA made them change it by changing the scruitineering requirements.

Ah ye, the "side holes". That to me was brilliant. IIRC correctly, the FIA merely specified the total size of the airbox holes, but not where they could be or how many. Most teams, realizing what was intended, cut one large groove down the "spine" of the airbox. Ferrari, cut two very small holes (one on each side) on the sides, and close to the front. Together they added up to the required area, but as you say Mario, did basically nothing. It was basically a smaller less controversial version of the double diffuser scandal. Every knew what the FIA wanted, even though they weren't specific, and someone was going to try something funny. I still say if the 1994 season hadn't been so horrific, that the side h0les would have been deemed legal. Of course if it hadn't been such an awful season, the FIA wouldn't have banned airboxes (which due to sponsor gripes turned int0 the holes rule).

[ibsey]

I think that they only used that configuration for one or two races before the FIA made them change it by changing the scruitineering requirements.

They used that configuration at Canada 1994 where both Ferrari's where extremely strong in quali trim with Alesi even being on pole on after Friday. Might you Alesi was also a bit special around Montreal.

Every knew what the FIA wanted, even though they weren't specific, and someone was going to try something funny.

I think a similar situation occurred when teams designed their new 1996 cockpit sides. IIRC Ferrari stuck to the letter of the law on this one and produced a big bulky design which must have produced vast amounts of drag. Whereas other teams took the Williams / Jordan approach (i.e. the minimum height necessary) which looked to be much more effective.

In fact I reckon when Ferrari rolled out the 1996 model, that was a pretty rejectfully moment for F1. When the manufacturer most famed for it great looking cars produces that particular eye sore. At least the poor performing cars of 1991 & 1992 looked stunning. Where as the 1996 car was ugly and a heap of junk!

[dr-baker]

In fact I reckon when Ferrari rolled out the 1996 model, that was a pretty rejectfully moment for F1. When the manufacturer most famed for it great looking cars produces that particular eye sore. At least the poor performing cars of 1991 & 1992 looked stunning. Where as the 1996 car was ugly and a heap of junk!

Yeah, the high nose was ugly, the sidepods were ugly, the cockpit surround was ugly...

[FullMetalJack]

In fact I reckon when Ferrari rolled out the 1996 model, that was a pretty rejectfully moment for F1. When the manufacturer most famed for it great looking cars produces that particular eye sore. At least the poor performing cars of 1991 & 1992 looked stunning. Where as the 1996 car was ugly and a heap of junk!

Yeah, the high nose was ugly, the sidepods were ugly, the cockpit surround was ugly...

High nose was ugly.

But when that Ferrari had the low nose, it was a masterpiece.

[dr-baker]

In fact I reckon when Ferrari rolled out the 1996 model, that was a pretty rejectfully moment for F1. When the manufacturer most famed for it great looking cars produces that particular eye sore. At least the poor performing cars of 1991 & 1992 looked stunning. Where as the 1996 car was ugly and a heap of junk!

Yeah, the high nose was ugly, the sidepods were ugly, the cockpit surround was ugly...

High nose was ugly.

But when that Ferrari had the low nose, it was a masterpiece.

On a scale of puppy dog to angler fish, that car went from angler fish to blobfish when it changed noses...

[midgrid]

My understanding is that, technically, the system McLaren were using in 1994 wasn't a fully automatic system, though it was in breach of the regulations.

As far as I am aware, their system was officially classed as a "pre-selection" mechanism: the driver would still have to manually actuate the lever to shift down, but the software used to control the shift would only allow the gear change to occur when the revs dropped below a predetermined optimal shift point. The driver could therefore request as many downshifts as he liked as he hit the brakes for a corner, as the gearbox would then decide when to shift down as the revs dropped.
It was that aspect of their design that McLaren tried to use as their defence in that instance - their argument was that the driver still had control over the downshift because he had to request the number of downshifts he wanted (the car would not automatically downshift by itself). As you can imagine, the FIA's decision was to reject that on the basis that although the driver did technically have to request the downshift, because that was not simultaneous with the action of changing the gear, the driver wasn't fully in control of the shift and therefore the gearbox wasn't acceptable.

I think that the main reason why the McLaren case is overlooked is because the FIA held their inquiry into McLaren's gearbox on the same day as they investigated Benetton for the fuel rig fire, with the much more dramatic second case dominating the headlines. McLaren's case was also a case where the FIA was somewhat discrete in their judgement - which was basically along the lines of "we will not take any further action against you so long as you change the gearbox immediately".

Furthermore, there was also a separate case involving Ferrari rumbling on in the background too - I believe that Ferrari were accused of using traction control during that season, which was again resolved by the FIA along the lines of "we'll drop the charges if you change the car", since the Benetton case was the dominant one that season.
In fact, Ferrari were in trouble a few times that season - the other case involving them was over the FIA's mid season orders to cut holes in the airboxes to reduce the air ram effect, therefore slowing the cars down slightly by reducing the power of the engines slightly. I believe it was ibsey who pointed out that Ferrari's initial design circumvented the intention of that ruling by putting the holes in a position that had relatively little impact on the air ram effect, but was still technically legal - I think that they only used that configuration for one or two races before the FIA made them change it by changing the scruitineering requirements.

Ah ye, the "side holes". That to me was brilliant. IIRC correctly, the FIA merely specified the total size of the airbox holes, but not where they could be or how many. Most teams, realizing what was intended, cut one large groove down the "spine" of the airbox. Ferrari, cut two very small holes (one on each side) on the sides, and close to the front. Together they added up to the required area, but as you say Mario, did basically nothing. It was basically a smaller less controversial version of the double diffuser scandal. Every knew what the FIA wanted, even though they weren't specific, and someone was going to try something funny. I still say if the 1994 season hadn't been so horrific, that the side h0les would have been deemed legal. Of course if it hadn't been such an awful season, the FIA wouldn't have banned airboxes (which due to sponsor gripes turned int0 the holes rule).

That reminds me that the plan was originally to ban airboxes completely for the 1995 season (or at least three races in, after the flyaways). The plan was later dropped, but Forti designed the FG01 without an airbox and the car initially ran with a bare rollhoop in the first couple of races before one was added!

[Wallio]

Probably an unpopular opinion, but that looks better to me.......

[dinizintheoven]

Tyrrell did something similar midway through the 1994 season, presumably sticking more to what the rules intended as opposed to finding some more ingenious way round it. The resultant engine cover looked more like it came off an early 90s Formula 3000 car.

I found a picture or two, and here's the Canadian-spec 022:





The airboxless Forti, from the side, looked almost like it had one - the sides of the bare roll bar had been extended to blend in with the line of the engine cover. Presumably this was to save them a few of Pedro Diniz's reals by not having to make a new cover, and merely attacking the engine cover of a scrapped Fondmetal GR02 with a tin opener...

[ibsey]

Tyrrell did something similar midway through the 1994 season, presumably sticking more to what the rules intended as opposed to finding some more ingenious way round it. The resultant engine cover looked more like it came off an early 90s Formula 3000 car.

I found a picture or two, and here's the Canadian-spec 022:





The airboxless Forti, from the side, looked almost like it had one - the sides of the bare roll bar had been extended to blend in with the line of the engine cover. Presumably this was to save them a few of Pedro Diniz's reals by not having to make a new cover, and merely attacking the engine cover of a scrapped Fondmetal GR02 with a tin opener...

Surely these bare rollhoops would be more likely to dig into sand/gravel traps then the original airboxes were?

Seems somewhat ironic that these changes made in the name of safety potentially made the cars more dangerous. But then this is the FIA we are talking about. I mean didn't the teams warn the FIA that making such major changes in such a short space of time post Imola 1994, could lead to more dangerous cars. And that the Pedro Lamy accident was as a result of this i.e. Lotus making the required changes to their car without the time to quality control them as they would normally do. Hence something failed on Lamy's car!

Typically FIA - we don't care if its safer or not - we just want to be seen to be doing something.

[Yannick]

No contest. The whole weekend was farcical, especially how they......just......allowed this happen.

This, because how it spiraled out of control. Toyota has two tyre failures due to running their pressures way below what Michelin said to, and the FOTA, er I'm sorry the GPMA, used it to organize a mass boycott by Friday night. The sheer tactical brilliance of it was incredible, the GPMA knew America was a shaky market for F1 and thus this would kill it, and they knew no mater what was suggested by them, the FIA wouldn't approve it, and that Ferrari (already the bad guys to many) would race no matter what since they badly needed points.

So all that lead to really farcical things like Trulli taking pole with 5 laps of fuel on board (Toyota, not the FIA actually nixed the chicane idea, as they wouldn't have been able to run the acclimation session due to fuel, no matter as Mosley was against it anyway) and then lining up for a dummy grid an pulling off. And remember over here we had NO IDEA any of this was going to happen, as F1 coverage is terrible. However the farce did make "Sportscenter" that night......


The whole weekend was a joke, after Ralf announced he was pulling out, that half-wit muppet Windbag (I mean Windsor) interviewed him, and asked if he had a carbon-fiber shard in the eye (the rumor at the time). Ralf said, very clearly, no its by neck/back and a concussion. Windsor looks in the camera and goes "Thank you Ralf, that was Ralf Schumacher, who has withdrawn from the USGP due to an eye injury." Ralf actually threw up his hands before the camera cut.

I take back my earlier post. This interview deserves the honor of being most rejectful F1 moment ever.

Honestly, I didn't even know this interview happened. That's far more farcial than the shite RTL (german F1 broadcaster) is airing most of the time.

Indeed. Reading about this interview for the first time here, I must say it reminds me of Eric Idle's role as reporter in the movie "The Rutles ... All You Need Is Cash".

[Wallio]

Considering F1 cars ran that way in '80s fine, and Indycars ran that way forever, ditto F3000, I think they were ok.....

[ibsey]

Considering F1 cars ran that way in '80s fine, and Indycars ran that way forever, ditto F3000, I think they were ok.....

I take your, very well made point Wallio. But I know which airbox design I would prefer to have if I was about to land upside down into a sand/gravel trap. Particularly as one of them was a rehashed designed that was quickly forced through.

[Wallio]

Considering F1 cars ran that way in '80s fine, and Indycars ran that way forever, ditto F3000, I think they were ok.....

I take your, very well made point Wallio. But I know which airbox design I would prefer to have if I was about to land upside down into a sand/gravel trap. Particularly as one of them was a rehashed designed that was quickly forced through.

The thing is though, its all perception. An airbox is no stronger than a rollbar. None. The roll hoop part is the only "strength" in the design. Don't believe me? Look at pictures of Irvine's Ferrari after the Spa '98 melee. He didn't even roll, and the airbox was destroyed. The roll hoop on the other hand, was still there.

[ibsey]

Considering F1 cars ran that way in '80s fine, and Indycars ran that way forever, ditto F3000, I think they were ok.....

I take your, very well made point Wallio. But I know which airbox design I would prefer to have if I was about to land upside down into a sand/gravel trap. Particularly as one of them was a rehashed designed that was quickly forced through.

The thing is though, its all perception. An airbox is no stronger than a rollbar. None. The roll hoop part is the only "strength" in the design. Don't believe me? Look at pictures of Irvine's Ferrari after the Spa '98 melee. He didn't even roll, and the airbox was destroyed. The roll hoop on the other hand, was still there.

That maybe so. And I'm no expert on this but surely a bare rollhoop like the Forti, and kind of like the Tyrell, would be more likely to dig into sand/gravel traps then the original airboxes were?

A bit like when someone wears high heels on sand they dig into the sand more than someone with flat shoes. Extreme example I know, but you get my point.

[AndreaModa]

I understand what you mean ibsey. Essentially what you're getting at is the weight of the car, when it is upside down, is subjected on a much smaller surface area when a bare roll hoop is used compared to a full airbox.

It makes sense, but I think Wallio is correct in that the remainder of the airbox has very little structural rigidity or strength so when subjected to any sort of force such as a car being flipped and landing heavily upside down, any part of the airbox behind the roll hoop would probably just break up.

It's a crash like the one at the start of the 1999 European GP at the Nurburgring involving Diniz where the strength of the roll hoop is really tested. That car really dug into the dirt after it went over and a failure of the hoop there could have been terrible for Pedro. In instances like that I'm not sure how much use the airbox was, but it perhaps might have lessened the effect of the hoop digging in than had the hoop been there on its own and thus covering a smaller surface area when against the ground.

The incident for reference is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN7YH_tlrkU

[dinizintheoven]

What I want to know is why there were constructors in the 80s - mainly - who appeared to see the roll bar as some kind of last minute add-on, and would bend a few steel tubes into place and bolt it on top of the engine cover, even as late as 1989. Coloni and AGS spring to mind in particular, and we all know how that ended. Now, Monsieur Streiff, if you'd like to trundle your wheelchair over to this microphone to give us your views...

Was this really the case, though? Mario, it's over to you.

[dr-baker]

Well, I don't know much about this myself, but Nick Heidfeld's roll-hoop held out pretty well today. And the Formula E cars are hardly in need of an airbox (unless extra cooling will be required at a later date).



The roll-hoop as taken by me at the first Donnington test (it can be seen on both the engine cover and on the main body of the car):

[Londoner]

I understand what you mean ibsey. Essentially what you're getting at is the weight of the car, when it is upside down, is subjected on a much smaller surface area when a bare roll hoop is used compared to a full airbox.

It makes sense, but I think Wallio is correct in that the remainder of the airbox has very little structural rigidity or strength so when subjected to any sort of force such as a car being flipped and landing heavily upside down, any part of the airbox behind the roll hoop would probably just break up.

It's a crash like the one at the start of the 1999 European GP at the Nurburgring involving Diniz where the strength of the roll hoop is really tested. That car really dug into the dirt after it went over and a failure of the hoop there could have been terrible for Pedro. In instances like that I'm not sure how much use the airbox was, but it perhaps might have lessened the effect of the hoop digging in than had the hoop been there on its own and thus covering a smaller surface area when against the ground.

The incident for reference is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN7YH_tlrkU

Well, it turns out that the roll hoop did actually fail in the accident, but fortunately for Pedro, the high cockpit protection fitted to his car saved him. It was an incredibly lucky escape, as this is what remained of the Sauber after it was recovered.



Speaking of the 1999 European Grand Prix, the false start was pretty rejectful, as the first 5 cars and a midfielder all drive away, and the other 17 cars just stay where they are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgxbuM9W0l8

[andrew2209]

A few more pictures of the accident Diniz had, which just shows how lucky he was to escape serious injury

[Bleu]

It was in the same spot where Wouter von Eeuwijk was paralysed in German F3 crash just a month or so before. That accident had similar rollbar failure happening to the car.

[Wallio]

I understand what you mean ibsey. Essentially what you're getting at is the weight of the car, when it is upside down, is subjected on a much smaller surface area when a bare roll hoop is used compared to a full airbox.

It makes sense, but I think Wallio is correct in that the remainder of the airbox has very little structural rigidity or strength so when subjected to any sort of force such as a car being flipped and landing heavily upside down, any part of the airbox behind the roll hoop would probably just break up.

It's a crash like the one at the start of the 1999 European GP at the Nurburgring involving Diniz where the strength of the roll hoop is really tested. That car really dug into the dirt after it went over and a failure of the hoop there could have been terrible for Pedro. In instances like that I'm not sure how much use the airbox was, but it perhaps might have lessened the effect of the hoop digging in than had the hoop been there on its own and thus covering a smaller surface area when against the ground.

The incident for reference is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN7YH_tlrkU

Well, it turns out that the roll hoop did actually fail in the accident, but fortunately for Pedro, the high cockpit protection fitted to his car saved him. It was an incredibly lucky escape, as this is what remained of the Sauber after it was recovered.



Speaking of the 1999 European Grand Prix, the false start was pretty rejectful, as the first 5 cars and a midfielder all drive away, and the other 17 cars just stay where they are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgxbuM9W0l8

That to me is staggering, considering I have seen pictures of Dan Wheldon's car after his tragic wreck, and contrary to what was first reported, his roll hoop WAS still there. I obviously won't put it up, but its out there if you want to see it. The hoop was pretty much all that remained, actually.

[ibsey]

I remember it staggering quite a few people in F1 at the time as well. IIRC in Autosport magazine the week after the Diniz crash they were asking lots of questions as to how the roll hoop could have failed so badly. However I don't think any action was taken against Sauber for the failure.

[mario]

What I want to know is why there were constructors in the 80s - mainly - who appeared to see the roll bar as some kind of last minute add-on, and would bend a few steel tubes into place and bolt it on top of the engine cover, even as late as 1989. Coloni and AGS spring to mind in particular, and we all know how that ended. Now, Monsieur Streiff, if you'd like to trundle your wheelchair over to this microphone to give us your views...

Was this really the case, though? Mario, it's over to you.

Well, one element that would have contributed to that was the fact that, over the course of that decade, the rollover protection requirements effectively remained static - it's not really until the 1990's that the FIA finally began beefing up the cockpit protection requirements.

In many ways, even many of the major teams did not really put that much effort into that area - an example of that might be McLaren, where the roll hoop of the MP4/3 from 1987 didn't really evolve at all beyond what they were using back in 1981 on the MP4/1.

Really, for most teams, the types of roll hoop design that was common practise at the time were really just variations of designs that mostly dated back to the 1970's, or perhaps even earlier - the roll hoop on the Lotus 99T, for example, wouldn't have looked out of place on the Lotus 49, in part because the regulations on roll hoop design had remained stagnant for quite a long time.

A lack of regulatory action is definitely one issue in that regard - if there is no demand from the regulator for an improved system, then there is nothing to drive the teams forward and so they will continue to use a variation on an existing design that meets the minimum regulatory requirements.

A second aspect is that, in the 1980's, the introduction of turbocharged engines effectively negated the need for an airbox above the drivers head - the shift to turbos lead to the trend of having sidepod mounted snorkels instead, which was the preferred option for packaging reasons.

With the need for an airbox removed, the designers are now going to want to have a relatively insubstantial structure above the drivers head that creates a relatively small turbulent wake, which therefore improves the airflow over the rear wing (and, as a small secondary advantage, shifting the centre of gravity downwards, but that is not the main incentive).

In that instance, a relatively simple roll hoop along the lines of what AGS were using would, in theory, have a small aero advantage, and ultimately the teams are going to prioritise potential performance avenues over safety if they think they can get away with it.

[MartinJS81]

Speaking of the 1999 European Grand Prix, the false start was pretty rejectful, as the first 5 cars and a midfielder all drive away, and the other 17 cars just stay where they are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgxbuM9W0l8

The midfielder being Jean Alesi of course. Always had his eyes on the front even when the car couldn't get him there.

[novitopoli]

Seems the whole Australian GP weekend could fare well among these moments...

[UncreativeUsername37]

Seems the whole Australian GP weekend could fare well among these moments...

Moment.

[Rob Dylan]

Another honourable mention I came across last night was the formation of the 2003 Austrian Grand Prix grid. I can't find any pictures of it anywhere, which is quite annoying.

Before the race began, because of their dud qualifying attempts, Webber and Alonso elected to start from the pitlane, leaving their gridslots empty. Grid all lined up ready, until da Matta caused the start to be aborted because of some launch control / electronics problem. So he went to the back (leaving his grid spot empty), and the grid did another formation lap. The second start was also aborted at the last minute, because da Matta's electronics launch control failed again, and Verstappen's car also had problems. So Verstappen went behind da Matta (leaving his grid slot empty), then Frentzen's car broke down on the formation lap, meaning he ran into the pitlane to get sorted out on the T-car - leaving his grid slot empty.

So all we had was 17 cars of the original 20 lined up, the majority of them on the right side of the grid (if facing forward) because they'd all gone behind each other after their various problems. I don't know if anyone has a picture of the result.

[Miguel98]

Another honourable mention I came across last night was the formation of the 2003 Austrian Grand Prix grid. I can't find any pictures of it anywhere, which is quite annoying.

Before the race began, because of their dud qualifying attempts, Webber and Alonso elected to start from the pitlane, leaving their gridslots empty. Grid all lined up ready, until da Matta caused the start to be aborted because of some launch control / electronics problem. So he went to the back (leaving his grid spot empty), and the grid did another formation lap. The second start was also aborted at the last minute, because da Matta's electronics launch control failed again, and Verstappen's car also had problems. So Verstappen went behind da Matta (leaving his grid slot empty), then Frentzen's car broke down on the formation lap, meaning he ran into the pitlane to get sorted out on the T-car - leaving his grid slot empty.

So all we had was 17 cars of the original 20 lined up, the majority of them on the right side of the grid (if facing forward) because they'd all gone behind each other after their various problems. I don't know if anyone has a picture of the result.

Well, there is this video! http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x16icr1_f1-austrian-gp-2003-race-part-1_sport

[ibsey]

That reminds me of Austria 2001 when 4 cars towards the front of the grid all stalled during the start of the race. Due to their new LC systems.