The Man from Sao Paulo - Senna to Williams in 1992

[TheMann]

Flexing steering arm in Eau Rouge no less. I read Perry's book Flat Out Flat Broke and he does talk about how bad things were and how close he came to assaulting Sassetti.

I read it his book too. A flexing steering arm in Eau Rouge is worse than insane, and the fact that Sassetti got arrested the next day honestly is why if I had been Perry I'd have taken a swing at him at that point. An accident in Eau Rouge is what claimed Stefan Bellof's life in 1985, a fact that F1 would know damn well if for no other reason than the fact that Bellof was one of those guys like Gilles Villeneuve and Mark Donohue who was taken from the racing world before he could fully reach what he was capable of. If there is one track in all of Formula One racing where one takes no chances with safety, it's Eau Rouge.

 

[TheMann]

As far as outright track designs go, I'd prefer Elkhart Lake, but it's the farthest from a densely populated area out of the three. Indy is a superior geographic position to all three, but it by nature is flat, and thus hindered by its own character. Watkins Glen and Laguna Seca have all sorts of character, but the entire circuits need updated and widened for modern F1. If someone had $100M+ to upgrade one of the three natural road courses, Watkins Glen would make the most sense. It has the character and history, plus it's not horribly far from the Northeast Corridor.

Laguna Seca's problem is it would cost the most to be improved to world-class. An investor trying to get the most for the money would go for the Glen.

If you are looking at the best commercial potential Laguna Seca wins - Watkins Glen is about a five-hour drive from New York, six hours from Philadelphia or Toronto, and both Laguna Seca and Road America are closer to major cities. Watkins Glen also would need the armco around the track removed, as most tracks have long since switched to concrete barriers but the Glen hasn't. Laguna Seca is also on the short and slow side for F1 cars. I think if you really want the best place to run an F1 car, I would recommend Road Atlanta or VIR. If you're willing to use a 1990s POD, you could also conceivably use Bridgehampton on Long Island as well. Bridgehampton would be a dream circuit for F1 - beautiful surroundings in one of the wealthiest areas of the United States, accessible from New York by public transit (yes, really) and if you are willing to spend the money, you could build a wicked facility there. I'd imagine for a nine-figure investment and F1 races you could easily get the locals to not whine about the noise.

Truly, Watkins Glen would probably be the most expensive to upgrade - it would need new pavement, gravel traps, media and pit facilities, paddock improvements, the barriers would have to be mostly if not entirely replaced, access roads improved. The cutoff for the NASCAR track would have to go, which would be a problem for the track, and remember that the France family owns the place, and they will not be keen on an F1 race being there as a rival to their facilities. Laguna Seca is hard too because it borders a military training facility and while it would be less expensive to upgrade than the Glen, it would not be the best F1 track. Road America IMO of the three you mentioned would be my pick - beautiful surroundings, Chicago and Milwaukee not too far away, a first-class facility thanks to near-constant improvements since the early 1990s and safety improvements wouldn't be all that difficult, plus it would be a fun track to race on because of its speed. I'm only recommending VIR because its probably one of a tiny number of better driver's tracks in the Americas and Road Atlanta because its almost within the borders of a major city and Don Panoz has really reworked the place since he's owned it.

 

[TheMann]

With the ALT-Indy, nevermind the NFL sized stadium, though something like a stadium section which could host concerts, would be ideal. I'm thinking Rock-am-Ring at Indy.

This is an idea that goes back to the 1970s. Watkins Glen turned down an opportunity to host Woodstock '99 (probably a good thing considering what a hellhole that turned into) and they did host a number of concerts in the '70s. Lots of racetracks do stuff like that, and Indianapolis would be a good spot for it.

I delayed updating yesterday because of OTL racing. If you caught the F1 race, I was trying to keep from an anti-team orders rant - which at it's peak, might have got me kicked, (I was that pissed off and moderately intoxicated.)

Yeah, I had a good satellite feed at the place where I was watching, and I blurted out "What the **** is this ****?!" at the TV when they were talking about Red Bull telling Vettel to hang back. That was BS, and Mercedes telling Rosberg not to pass Hamilton was also BS. It's racing, you idiots, and at this level you can be pretty sure that Sebastien, Mark, Lewis and Nico are not gonna crash into each other trying to pass. None of them could afford a DNF from up front like that.

The IndyCar race, OTOH, made me only yell at Hildebrand. (Out of the front runners, I'm a Power fan, otherwise I have Rahal, Kimball, and Hinchcliffe biases.)

I think we can agree on this one, though I'm a big Hinch supporter and am also biased towards those guys, Castroneves, Kanaan, Marco and Simona. Also, I always root for anyone beating a Chip Ganassi car. I hate that fat sack of dog poop for a very long list of crimes - hiring Eddie Cheever (thus having his insufferable self in Indycars), screwing Bryan Herta in 1995, putting Juan Pablo Montoya in a stock car instead of an Indycar where he'd haul ass, trying to play Machiavelli many times in the late CART days, supporting Tony George's backhanded attempt to kill Champ Car in 2004, firing Memo Gidley in favor of Nicolas Minassian (what kinda dumb **** move was that?!) and most of all for orchestrating Randy Bernard's firing as Indycar boss in favor of another IMS and team owner mouthpiece.

Though IndyCar is looking for the female hype of a Danica Patrick through Simona de Silvestro, as a lifelong fan, I'm glad the right women stayed. (Though I wish Legge would get a ride and Fisher never went behind the pit-wall.) de Silvestro showed some game, I knew she was on options, but SCUFFED options, fighting that hard? I wish I could give her a high-five after that, after getting screwed over with the Lotus disaster last year, she has some racing karma points she deserves to cash in.

Sarah went behind the wall because she wants to be a mom. No shame in that IMO, and I don't think we've seen the last of her. We certainly haven't seen the last of Katherine Legge, and Simona in an equal car would hand Danica her backside on a silver platter. I'll bet her and Kanaan make KV Racing Technology look awful good in 2013. If the racing gods are really gonna be beneficial to Simona, she'll retire with a couple Indycar titles and her face on the Borg Warner Trophy at least once. I loathe Kevin Kalkhoven, but I can't not root for KVRT because Jimmy Vasser is one of my all-time favorite racing car drivers anywhere, Simona deserves lots of success and Tony Kanaan deserves to retire on a big high note, he's earned it and then some.

 

[athleticsfan2kx]

Well, TheMann I Hope you can see that "Cause I Serenade My Song" has to cover IndyCar Racing along with other Motorsports, So The 1992 F1 Season is Doing Well so Far, So I Can't Wait for the British Grand Prix at Silverstone which will take place so I Hope I Wanna Cheer on Nigel Mansell!

 

[TheMann]

Well, TheMann I Hope you can see that "Cause I Serenade My Song" has to cover IndyCar Racing along with other Motorsports, So The 1992 F1 Season is Doing Well so Far, So I Can't Wait for the British Grand Prix at Silverstone which will take place so I Hope I Wanna Cheer on Nigel Mansell!

You wanna cheer on Mansell? Really? I feel so sorry for you.

 

[athleticsfan2kx]

You wanna cheer on Mansell? Really? I feel so sorry for you.

Okay, I Can't Wait to See What Will Happen Next at Silverstone for the British Grand Prix and maybe Nigel Mansell will win this thing.

 

[phx1138]

I think we can agree on this one

I think there's a miscommunication, there. I never actually said that. (Not a fan of IndyCar. Mostly because the commentary is awful. {I have no earthly clue why they need three guys in the booth. Or live pit interviews, a plague ITV has fallen into lately.})

I don't think the FIA or teams or FOCA for that matter would approve of that, because of the possibility of sponsorship losses and team failures as a result. The best idea might be a penalty on grid spots at the next race - call out a team order to not allow drivers to pass at a race, both cars lost ten qualifying positions at the next race. That would get the point across, I think. I would also narrow this to team orders that have a detrimental effect on the race - if a team wants two drivers to work together to go through the field, that should be allowed by all means.

I'd go along with the first part, absent really egregious behavior, like handing over a win. Punting somebody off for teammate benefit (actually, for any reason) should be a points loss.

On the second, IDK. That seems to go against the whole idea of "no team orders".

I think the better option might be to start with a base amount that all teams that run a full-season two-car program get, then additional moneys provided for points scored, and a secondary budget that provides money to teams which run single cars or part seasons or extra cars at races.

Starting from an F1 money pool, shared equally? (Which would be my choice.) Or a flat "startup fee" plus "points money"? (That'd be good, too.)

IDK enough about the sponsorship deals to say, but can (does?) F1 run a "contingency money" system? Where there's a "pay for play" based on sponsor decals? (Akin to the Sportsman classes in drag racing.) Something the lower-financed teams get access to, but the top ones can't?

The problem with spending in F1 is that it'll suck up whatever someone is willing to pour into it

Yeah, that's exactly the trouble. And finding somebody willing to spend it ain't hard anymore, either.

a luxury tax, where the FIA estimates team budgets and forces those above the average of said budgets to pay those below said budgets, on the condition that it is used in F1 racing

I like that idea.

Bans on hospitality would be foolish

...crew transporting isn't cheap but it isn't the killer portion of the budgets.

First ideas that came to me.

Banning testing

Don't think an outright ban is a good idea, even if viable.

I like having refueling, because it allows teams to play strategic games and toss the races around for a loop by running on light fuel loads and soft tires and as a result try to run away with the lead with the fast cars before they have to pit.

I don't. I much prefer it be settled on the road. I also think being able to run the engines & tires harder increases cost. (I may be showing some bias based on game experience.)

You won't get a tire capable of working with an F1 car that can last a full race and give F1-level grip

Have things really changed that much since '65? Or even '75. (I don't keep up nearly as well as I'd like.)

Better idea might be going the opposite route - limit aero developments but allow the tiremakers to go nuts, provided they sell tires to teams at an FIA-mandated cost which is reasonable. At that point, if they want to go nuts on tire development, that's their problem. This approach also allows the cars to rely more on grip made by the tires as opposed to downforce, which is good for overtaking in that you don't get the huge problem with aero washout that a chasing car suffers so often in F1.

I really like that idea, myself, all considered. I'd far rather see the cars much more resemble the '68 Lotus or 312 (with all the modern construction advantages, of course), plus a 2.4-2.5 liter limit (but not a ban on V12s or H16s, if anybody's crazy enough to want 'em). That would appear to have the benefit of cutting down a lot of high-cost aero testing... (So the money would go into making chassis of carven beryllium, or designing solid platinum fuel injectors, or something.)

On "selling", I'd suggest a tyre deal with F1, where the teams get tyres more/less free, as part of their team entry fee, so the whole sport subsidizes cost for everybody. (Anybody wants "spec" tires just for them can get 'em for a fee on top of that.)

It also occurs to me designing cars around a spec tire would help keep cost down, where allowing more variability might defeat the purpose (or work against it). I do think it's still better than the extreme aero budgets & passing issues (not to mention the uglies).

 

[Archibald]

Okay, I Can't Wait to See What Will Happen Next at Silverstone for the British Grand Prix and maybe Nigel Mansell will win this thing.

When I was a child I red again and again an automobile magazine with an article that delt with Mansell mishaps. I laughed my a$$ off everytime.

Mansell at times was a symbol for JINX. He was Formula one own Benny Hill or Mr Bean.

Best parts

Mansell bangs head cheering on the podium. He cut his hand with the winner's cup. He sprains his ankle the day before the final decisive race. It catches chickenpox - courtesy of his children.

Monaco 1984, the day Senna had its major breakthrough; under heavy rain Mansell is leading. The team manager (think it was Lotus), hiq fingers crossed, holding his breath mutters "NIGEL, PLEASE BE CAREFUL !" just as he says that, kaboom ! Mansell crashes.
Mansell clashes with Senna.
Mansell clashes with Piquet.

that was hilarious. "L'imprevisible monsieur Mansell" - the unpredictible mister Mansell. I wish I could find that article on the web.

 

[FickleCrossroad]

The best idea might be a penalty on grid spots at the next race - call out a team order to not allow drivers to pass at a race, both cars lost ten qualifying positions at the next race. That would get the point across, I think. I would also narrow this to team orders that have a detrimental effect on the race - if a team wants two drivers to work together to go through the field, that should be allowed by all means.

Grid spots is one thing, and for tricky calls, I agree there. However, with the 90's comes the ability for in-time telemetry feeds to the FIA, and on-board TV can be stretched for every car. So, if anything blatant happens, it can be punished during the race.

I think the better option might be to start with a base amount that all teams that run a full-season two-car program get, then additional moneys provided for points scored, and a secondary budget that provides money to teams which run single cars or part seasons or extra cars at races.

That's pretty much what I proposed earlier, minus the difference for one-car teams. I want one-car outfits to come back, personally. Just no more than two.

The problem with spending in F1 is that it'll suck up whatever someone is willing to pour into it, and the teams always find ways of getting around limits on testing. The best idea I could give for it is the mandated durability for engines and transmissions and a luxury tax, where the FIA estimates team budgets and forces those above the average of said budgets to pay those below said budgets, on the condition that it is used in F1 racing.

Agreed, though I'd try to take the estimation out of it. Require the teams to be audited regularly, and have a hard budget cap around $200M (today's dollars.) Break the cap and lose points.

I like having refueling, because it allows teams to play strategic games and toss the races around for a loop by running on light fuel loads and soft tires...

The safety issue, plus increased ease of losing a couple seconds in a stop are a bit annoying. Now, if the gas tanks could hold over half-distance, we might be on to something here.

You won't get a tire capable of working with an F1 car that can last a full race and give F1-level grip, and if you do this you put all of the focus for finding grip on aerodynamics, which causes costs to explode. Better idea might be going the opposite route - limit aero developments but allow the tiremakers to go nuts, provided they sell tires to teams at an FIA-mandated cost which is reasonable.

Don't engines suck up half the budget? Allowing the tire makers to go nuts could go either way.

Thoughts on allowing the tire makers to compete annually, and the teams vote on which compounds to adopt for that season? So, we could have a year with Goodyear Hard, Pirelli Medium, Bridgestone Soft, etc., and the next with a different cast entirely. One thing that has to go NOW is the predetermined compounds going into a race weekend. Let the teams pick, if one's better on hards and mediums, and another prefers the mediums and softs, LET THEM. Just have all the tires available at the track for them to pick & choose.

I read it his book too. A flexing steering arm in Eau Rouge is worse than insane...

No shit. *facepalm*

If you are looking at the best commercial potential Laguna Seca wins - Watkins Glen is about a five-hour drive from New York, six hours from Philadelphia or Toronto, and both Laguna Seca and Road America are closer to major cities. Watkins Glen also would need the armco around the track removed, as most tracks have long since switched to concrete barriers but the Glen hasn't. Laguna Seca is also on the short and slow side for F1 cars. I think if you really want the best place to run an F1 car, I would recommend Road Atlanta or VIR. If you're willing to use a 1990s POD, you could also conceivably use Bridgehampton on Long Island as well. Bridgehampton would be a dream circuit for F1 - beautiful surroundings in one of the wealthiest areas of the United States, accessible from New York by public transit (yes, really) and if you are willing to spend the money, you could build a wicked facility there. I'd imagine for a nine-figure investment and F1 races you could easily get the locals to not whine about the noise.

Watkins Glen: might not be right next to a city, but it's only a few hours away from the whole Northeast Corridor. It needs a lot of upgrades, (so do all of the other tracks the two of us mentioned, minus Road America,) and it has until '97 before it's fully-owned by the France family. Any move on the Glen would need to be made quick.

VIR: Drivers' track, but looking at the layout, shitty television. Not enough straightaways, I can't imagine F1 or Indy getting much overtaking in. Same issue with upgrades making it an F1 caliber track.

Laguna Seca: Needs widened, paddock, runoff areas, probably lengthened where possible (frontstraight, add a section between current turn four and the old track, perhaps?) Great location.

Bridgehampton: Needs the most work to turn into an F1 track, plus getting rid of the noise ordinance. High-cost, high reward. Also great location.

Elkhart Lake: Not much shorter than Spa, and if current cars can lap below 1:40, the race will be over in 70min. Decent but not great location.

Road Atlanta: Looks like the complete average out of all the tracks mentioned here. Might be worth settling for.

Truly, Watkins Glen would probably be the most expensive to upgrade - it would need new pavement, gravel traps, media and pit facilities, paddock improvements, the barriers would have to be mostly if not entirely replaced, access roads improved. The cutoff for the NASCAR track would have to go, which would be a problem for the track, and remember that the France family owns the place, and they will not be keen on an F1 race being there as a rival to their facilities. Laguna Seca is hard too because it borders a military training facility and while it would be less expensive to upgrade than the Glen, it would not be the best F1 track. Road America IMO of the three you mentioned would be my pick - beautiful surroundings, Chicago and Milwaukee not too far away, a first-class facility thanks to near-constant improvements since the early 1990s and safety improvements wouldn't be all that difficult, plus it would be a fun track to race on because of its speed. I'm only recommending VIR because its probably one of a tiny number of better driver's tracks in the Americas and Road Atlanta because its almost within the borders of a major city and Don Panoz has really reworked the place since he's owned it.

Ah, buying the Corning share of the Glen, and slowly pushing the France family out would be nice. Still, that will be a problem... Road Atlanta, Road America, Laguna Seca, and Bridgehamption all look better for that reason.

I really like that idea, myself, all considered. I'd far rather see the cars much more resemble the '68 Lotus or 312 (with all the modern construction advantages, of course), plus a 2.4-2.5 liter limit (but not a ban on V12s or H16s, if anybody's crazy enough to want 'em). That would appear to have the benefit of cutting down a lot of high-cost aero testing... (So the money would go into making chassis of carven beryllium, or designing solid platinum fuel injectors, or something.)

Engines now suck up what? Half the budget? To add more flexibility in engine format, with today's technologies, you'd NEED that hard budget cap. I'm thinking something along the lines of 2.5 for a decade, 2L thereafter, with 4-12 cylinders allowed at first (years 1-5 of the 2.5L era,) then 4-8 for years 6-10, then 4-6 cylinders for the 2L era.

It also occurs to me designing cars around a spec tire would help keep cost down, where allowing more variability might defeat the purpose (or work against it). I do think it's still better than the extreme aero budgets & passing issues (not to mention the uglies).

Honestly, I think you'd see something like this season, where the drivers have to dial back to 80-85% just to balance performance and tire life.

Next update coming up!

 

[FickleCrossroad]

07 July 1992 – Grove

At the halfway point of the 1992 season, the grumbles towards Williams had become organized protests, however they mostly fell on deaf ears due to the planned reorganization of FISA into the FIA, and this season was one where the outgoing Balestre and incoming Mosley had already agreed that they were in no mood to rock the boat. The “best of the rest” teams such as McLaren, Benetton, and Ferrari, were frustrated, but they were slowly accepting that 1993 could be a walk for Williams should the trend continue. Representatives from McLaren and Benetton were in quiet talks ahead of the British Grand Prix, about how they should approach the new management on the 1994 season, knowing that results would be speaking for themselves. They didn’t want to hinder any of their own development programs, so they knew they could not afford to be too direct on the matter. With Senna locked into a contract through 1994, and Mansell likely to stay for one more year, a landslide of changes would put everyone back to square one.

Back at Grove, Senna, Mansell, and Newey were discussing the same issue bothering the other teams at their own expense. Newey recalled the conversation that he and Senna had regarding development over the next couple of years, and Mansell agreed that it was a good plan to push the 1994 project now that they had a platform to dominate the remainder of the season. CART had been luring him over a possible ride, but Mansell thought he should wait until the probable rule changes in 1994 are floated before making a decision. Without Prost in the picture, Mansell was glad he had a teammate who pushed himself harder than he pushed anyone else, and though he was initially angered that his status as #1 driver had been rescinded upon Senna’s arrival, all Senna had demanded was equality. With nearly a two-race lead in the standings so far, Senna hadn’t complained, he merely worked harder. The two got along well off the track, nearly as well as he had with Keke Rosberg. Yes, this was a good year to be with Williams. Adrian Newey, however, was faced with two separate challenges, the FW15 and the FW16. Senna had been aggressive in pushing for development on multiple fronts, and recalled hearing through the grapevine that such efforts at McLaren last year was the driving force behind his championship last season. It looked more and more like that would be the case for the next two and a half years. He was already looking towards the nose design of the Tyrrell and Benetton, and thought he could incorporate that into FW16, as any change in regulation so severe as the one Williams were expecting would require an entirely new design family of cars. Yes, the -16, not the -15. Time to focus Ayrton on the next year and a half, but maybe it could wait until this next race was over…

Round Nine – British Grand Prix – 12 July 1992 - Silverstone

Entering the second half of the season, Nigel Mansell was enough in the championship lead that he was not just the favorite son, but the prohibitive favorite at his home Grand Prix. He scored his third pole of the season in another squeaker of a qualifying session, and following Senna was Schumacher, Berger, Alesi, Brundle, Patrese, and Hakkinen. Under dry conditions, the crowd swelled to watch their hero try to climb another step closer to the championship.

In 1992, the majority of the teams were headquartered in Britain, so it was obvious everyone wanted to put on an impressive race to further credibility around the world of motorsport. Some teams, such as the cash-strapped March, decided it was time to up the ante and replace Paul Belmondo with another pay driver, Giovanni Lavaggi, in a gamble that hopefully would lead to enough funding to finish the season. Where March was teetering, Brabham was already falling to the mat. Damon Hill’s inspired drives over the last five races had zero points to show for it, but every time he finished a race, he did so in the top ten. For him, this was an audition for a team that could take him the rest of the day, and possibly provide a fast enough ride for him to score by the end of the season. There were rumors coming out of Larousse that they were willing to close the book on the troublesome Gachot, and that Hill would likely replace him.

As the parade lap cued the attendees to get ready, nerves were tense on the other side of the pitlane. This was a crown-jewel race, and even if no points were at stake, there was still pride and reputation. Red lights...green lights, and Senna was off with a shot, beating Mansell into Copse and adding three tenths by the end of the Hangar Straight. Both Williams drivers had the bit between their teeth this time around, and had lapped the field by the end of the 45th circuit, trading fastest laps eight times by the end of the day. It was more eventful in the fight for the remaining points positions, with Schumacher pushing his Benetton too hard on his out lap, nicking the left rear of Patrese’s McLaren attempting a pass into Vale, and took both cars out of the race. Alesi pounced on the other McLaren of Berger three laps later, but the move didn’t stick, with Brundle pressing past and into fourth. Alboreto fought his way into fifth by the end, with Groulliard atoning slightly for his lack of judgement at his home track to hold station in sixth with Berger’s retirement, exhausting himself for a hard-earned point fending off a spirited drive by Hill in Brabham’s final race.

The final laps kept the crowd on their feet, with Mansell and Senna swapping the lead three times in the last seven laps. Mansell won the thriller after getting a run on Senna and outbraking him into Bridge on the penultimate lap, a brilliant overtake that left the home crowd gasping as Senna couldn’t manage setting him up for a counter into Priory. After the race, Senna admitted in the press conference he had been expecting an attack into Priory, and took the corner wide to set up a block. To that, Mansell had a small smirk on his face, knowing that he’d outfought his rival.

Brundle, Hakkinen, Alboreto, and Groulliard completed the top six. It took several minutes for Mansell to make his way out of the car, the fans had swarmed the track before he could exit, cheering him wildly and nearly swept him off his feet before stewards could pick him up for the podium celebration. An exhausted Senna and Brundle were waiting there for him, showering him with champagne. The Williams crew partied hard into the night after such a stellar performance, with Senna taking pause and realizing that his championship hopes were starting to get a little blurrier, knowing that he would have to push harder than ever…


Round Ten – Grosser Mobil 1 Preis von Deutschland – 26 July 1992 - Hockenheim

For Ayrton Senna, the tenth round of the season began a do-or-die campaign to the end. He could not afford to fall any further back in the standings without risking the equal support his contract demanded, and feared that if the Constructors Championship was decided before he could close the gap, Mansell would be given the FW15, which was due to be ready by the last two races. (This was not the case, as Newey and Frank Williams decided to use the dominance of the FW14 for the remainder of the season, something that they kept to themselves for now, wanting to make a statement season now that it was nearly in the bag.) Adrian Newey had taken Ayrton aside after the festivities of the British Grand Prix, telling Senna that while he doubted there would be more than a few mechanical retirements in the team before the end of the season, it was unlikely that as he already had two, he’d have the majority of the remaining. Williams hadn’t screwed him over yet, his car still had the number one on the nose, so it was up to him. Breathe. Focus. Push.

When qualifying rolled around, Senna was back to his old form, topping Mansell on the sheets by over a quarter of a second. Schumacher managed a fourth alongside of Berger, with Patrese and Alesi on the third row, followed by Brundle and then the Ligers, with Capelli rounding out the top ten after the Saturday sessions.

The race itself was a mechanically bloody affair, with the four long straightaways of the Hockenheimring split by chicanes and the stadium section bringing torture for the engines . Behind the quick start of Senna, through the course of the race, seven engines died, including both Ferraris, Lotuses, Tyrrells, and Tarquini’s Fondmetal. Where Mansell had his fellow Britons two weeks before, Schumacher had his Germans at Hockenheim, Fresh off the error at Silverstone, Schumacher passed Berger and hounded Mansell early, yet conserved his tires enough to stay ahead after the round of stops. As determined as the man behind him was in the last race, the German wasn’t going to let his home crowd down. Mansell was having nothing of it, and looked at the young eagle ahead as not knowing that one was respect a lion. On the 37th lap, Mansell charged into the Ostkurve, but Schumacher just barely didn’t give Mansell enough room, and the Williams went just too deep into the grass to be able to avoid a clump of sod from a previous spin, which damaged his wing. Furious, he pushed on, but didn’t have the speed in the stadium section to keep up, and fell into the clutches of Berger. Both he and Patrese passed Mansell before the finish, with the final points-scorers being Senna, Schumacher, Berger, Patrese, Mansell, and Brundle. Williams was now seven points away from clinching the Constructor’s championship, and all but Mansell, Senna, Schumacher, and Berger were mathematically eliminated from the Drivers’, with six races remaining.

Points after ten races:

Drivers’:
Mansell – 76
Senna - 62
Schumacher – 38
Berger - 17
Patrese – 15
Hakinnen – 11
Brundle – 11
Alboreto - 8
Capelli – 7
Comas - 4
Alesi & Herbert – 3
Groulliard - 2
Wendlinger, Morbidelli, & Lehto – 1

Constructors’:
Williams – 138
Benetton - 49
McLaren - 32
Lotus - 14
Ferrari - 10
Footwork - 8
Ligier - 4
Tyrrell - 2
Minardi, March, Tyrrell, Dallara - 1

 

[Petike]

Made a work page for this. Expand upon it, if you wish.

 

[FickleCrossroad]

Holy shit, thanks!!! I'm not Kimi though, I don't know what I'm doing!

 

[athleticsfan2kx]

Holy shit, thanks!!! I'm not Kimi though, I don't know what I'm doing!

However I'm Cheering for Kimi Raikkonen but I Was Getting a Chance to Score More Points in the 1992 Formula 1 Season!

 

[phx1138]

That's pretty much what I proposed earlier, minus the difference for one-car teams. I want one-car outfits to come back, personally.

I've always felt like one-car teams were underfunded. That only makes the gap bigger, no?

Agreed, though I'd try to take the estimation out of it. Require the teams to be audited regularly, and have a hard budget cap around $200M (today's dollars.) Break the cap and lose points.

Agreed. I'd lower the cap to $100 mil.

Thoughts on allowing the tire makers to compete annually, and the teams vote on which compounds to adopt for that season?

I'm not seeing why all teams should have to run tyres from the same company, if more than one maker is available.

I find myself wondering if there couldn't be a kind of bidding war to bring tyre prices down. Or a kind of subsidy, where, say, Pirelli providing tires to *Coloni gets an FIA "kickback" because Pirelli is helping a low-budget team.

One thing that has to go NOW is the predetermined compounds going into a race weekend.

IMO, that has less to do with tires than theatre.

Watkins Glen: might not be right next to a city, but it's only a few hours away from the whole Northeast Corridor.

Beside it being a great base to build on, this IMO is the best reason to pick it: ready access to the fanbase.

To add more flexibility in engine format, with today's technologies, you'd NEED that hard budget cap. I'm thinking something along the lines of 2.5 for a decade, 2L thereafter, with 4-12 cylinders allowed at first (years 1-5 of the 2.5L era,) then 4-8 for years 6-10, then 4-6 cylinders for the 2L era.

I'm not thrilled with cylinder limits, myself.

What about requiring all be based on a stock block? That would seem to reduce costs most, & allow the most tech transfer to road cars.

Honestly, I think you'd see something like this season, where the drivers have to dial back to 80-85% just to balance performance and tire life.

I can live with that. Plus, if you remove/limit aero aids, you'd have to dial back.

 

[FickleCrossroad]

I've always felt like one-car teams were underfunded. That only makes the gap bigger, no?

With a hard budget cap, it'd be easier for the single-cars to keep up.

Agreed. I'd lower the cap to $100 mil.

If you go too tight, you'll scare off Ferrari, and once you do that, everything will start to unravel. The combination of changes needed means one would have to throw some bones. Personally, I'd go to $50M, with drivers' salaries part of the shared revenue (based on performance,) but I'm trying to be realistic.

I'm not seeing why all teams should have to run tyres from the same company, if more than one maker is available.

If you do that, then you're setting up what happened during the last tyre war, where all the Bridgestone teams were using a tyre that was designed for Ferrari.

I find myself wondering if there couldn't be a kind of bidding war to bring tyre prices down. Or a kind of subsidy, where, say, Pirelli providing tires to *Coloni gets an FIA "kickback" because Pirelli is helping a low-budget team.

Low-bid tyres in F1? That does not sound safe. The subsidy doesn't sound all that bad, though.

IMO, that has less to do with tires than theatre.

Well, the theatre issue with the mandated two-compound races is fine, I just don't like how the teams have no say on which compounds to run. Just having compounds compound strategy makes for decent theatre, but I'd put the choice in the hands of the teams. Really, you can add to the theatre here, because of the added flexibility. I'm trying to forestall the idiocy of this season, where hards fall off as fast as softs, and there's little anyone can do about it because they're running out of tyres.

Beside it being a great base to build on, this IMO is the best reason to pick it: ready access to the fanbase.

It's not THAT ready, though. Flying in and renting a car isn't the easiest concept for those who don't want to drive cross-country. Driving involves a slow funneling away from interstates with a lot of time on minor highways and local roads. That is far less of a problem on every other track option considered here except Bridgehampton.

Laguna Seca and Road Atlanta are actually the best for location when you consider air travel, while COTA (butterflied out, ITTL) and Indy are good location compromises for all comers. Elkhart Lake is almost as travel friendly as any of the above, but none can touch Indy and Atlanta. Watkins Glen, is not feasible for anything less than $100M. If you're going to burn that much, you might as well overhaul somewhere else. Personally, I'd pick the Glen for selfish reasons (closest out of the lot to where I grew up,) but again... Trying not to write a wet dream TL.

I'm not thrilled with cylinder limits, myself.

Nor am I. Engine costs suck upwards of nine-figures though, and if you cap the options, you cap the R&D budget. Again, this is a decision against writing a wet-dream TL, where teams like Jordan, Minardi, and Arrows are equal to Ferrari, McLaren, and Williams, and you have a works VW team dropping Veyron engines in the back of their F1 cars. (A concept that will never need an answer to the question "how much ballast do we need on this chassis?")

What about requiring all be based on a stock block? That would seem to reduce costs most, & allow the most tech transfer to road cars.

Stock-Block F1? It'd be awesome for GP2 and lower, but that'd take something away from F1 nowadays. Insane engines are part of the culture by the 90's, let alone now. If you're going to go stock-block, go REALLY longview, and say 3L Inline-Six turbodiesels (eventually switching to biodiesel,) with unlimited boost. When speeds get too high, limit boost and/or fuel, and problem solved.

I can live with that. Plus, if you remove/limit aero aids, you'd have to dial back.

Something like that's already in the cards for 1994 ITTL.

 

[Nazdakka]

I was watching F1 at the time of all this, so this is really interesting

Couple of historical accuracy nitpicks:

There were no safety cars in 1992. It was introduced in '93.

An outbraking move into Bridge at Silverstone in the '92 layout would be either a pass for the ages or end up with someone in an ambulance. In that year's configuration it was a fearsome 160mph sweeper at the end of a flat out blast all the way from Club (no chicane at Abbey). Given Senna's habit of choosing to have an accident rather than give way, Mansell would probably get the job done at either Vale or Priory.

Needs more Mansell whinging.

Keep it up!

 

[FickleCrossroad]

Couple of historical accuracy nitpicks:

There were no safety cars in 1992. It was introduced in '93.

Looks like you're right. I'll have to edit that. I just remembered it being during the years Senna was at McLaren, and thought it was in at 91 or 92. Ooops.

An outbraking move into Bridge at Silverstone in the '92 layout would be either a pass for the ages or end up with someone in an ambulance. In that year's configuration it was a fearsome 160mph sweeper at the end of a flat out blast all the way from Club (no chicane at Abbey). Given Senna's habit of choosing to have an accident rather than give way, Mansell would probably get the job done at either Vale or Priory.

I knew it'd be that kind of turn, and yeah, there's the "Senna aggression" factor, but I looked at it this way:

1) FW-14's in the hands of Mansell AND Senna would lead to higher confidence and higher aggression on either side.

2) I wanted Mansell to have a moment like that. When Mansell leaves F1, he won't be coming back. When I was writing that part, I had in the back of my mind to add a sentence like, "Senna attempted to repass at Vale, and couldn't get it done - losing too much ground to seal the deal on the final lap."

3) Senna's in a position going into Silverstone where a DNF + a Mansell win means that if Mansell doesn't DNF and can finish second for the rest of the year, Senna has to win EVERY race, just to win the title. My thought process I was trying to see for Senna was: "If you can't block a pass safely, stay close and counterattack immediately."

Needs more Mansell whinging. Keep it up!

Why would he whine when he's leading the standings, won more races, and finished every race at least 2nd, whereas Senna's had three DNF's?

1992 ITTL has Mansell in a position where he has no excuse TO whine. Don't worry, it'll come later.

 

[FickleCrossroad]

Couple of historical accuracy nitpicks:

Edits have addressed them. Thanks for the catches!

 

[phx1138]

With a hard budget cap, it'd be easier for the single-cars to keep up.

Fair point, & agreed.

If you go too tight, you'll scare off Ferrari, and once you do that, everything will start to unravel. The combination of changes needed means one would have to throw some bones. Personally, I'd go to $50M, with drivers' salaries part of the shared revenue (based on performance,) but I'm trying to be realistic.

If you were starting fresh, IMO you could easily say under $50mil, but you can't cut down to that. That's why I say $100mil: not crazy low from where they are OTL, but lower enough to scale back from insane high.

If you do that, then you're setting up what happened during the last tyre war, where all the Bridgestone teams were using a tyre that was designed for Ferrari.

Are you? With more than one tire company in the game?

Low-bid tyres in F1? That does not sound safe.

I'm not suggesting a lowest price contract, but more a "best deal in exchange for exclusive", or something. Besides, if you're Michelin or Avon or Dunlop (or Richmond or Kelly, for all that), & your tires are in F1, do you really want the world, & especially the world's racing fans, seeing you making junk?

The subsidy doesn't sound all that bad, though.

TY.

Well, the theatre issue with the mandated two-compound races is fine, I just don't like how the teams have no say on which compounds to run. Just having compounds compound strategy makes for decent theatre, but I'd put the choice in the hands of the teams. Really, you can add to the theatre here, because of the added flexibility.

Fair enough. I'd take away the choice entirely, myself, but I see the value. I'd sooner get excitement with passing courtesty of design changes rather than pit stops.

It's not THAT ready, though. Flying in and renting a car isn't the easiest concept for those who don't want to drive cross-country. Driving involves a slow funneling away from interstates with a lot of time on minor highways and local roads. That is far less of a problem on every other track option considered here except Bridgehampton.

Laguna Seca and Road Atlanta are actually the best for location when you consider air travel, while COTA (butterflied out, ITTL) and Indy are good location compromises for all comers. Elkhart Lake is almost as travel friendly as any of the above, but none can touch Indy and Atlanta. Watkins Glen, is not feasible for anything less than $100M. If you're going to burn that much, you might as well overhaul somewhere else. Personally, I'd pick the Glen for selfish reasons (closest out of the lot to where I grew up,) but again... Trying not to write a wet dream TL.

Oh, why not?

On that basis, Elkhart Lake is best. (I have a weakness for Watkins, myself, but that's the history buff in me: keep it where it started.)

Nor am I. Engine costs suck upwards of nine-figures though, and if you cap the options, you cap the R&D budget. Again, this is a decision against writing a wet-dream TL, where teams like Jordan, Minardi, and Arrows are equal to Ferrari, McLaren, and Williams, and you have a works VW team dropping Veyron engines in the back of their F1 cars. (A concept that will never need an answer to the question "how much ballast do we need on this chassis?")

And you're right again.

Stock-Block F1? It'd be awesome for GP2 and lower, but that'd take something away from F1 nowadays. Insane engines are part of the culture by the 90's, let alone now. If you're going to go stock-block, go REALLY longview, and say 3L Inline-Six turbodiesels (eventually switching to biodiesel,) with unlimited boost. When speeds get too high, limit boost and/or fuel, and problem solved.

I can't help think of the Repcos, tho. And I do rather like the idea of a diesel F1 car. (Sponsored by Caterpillar?) Yes, I know, fat chance.

That said, you're right in general. Things have changed too much. (I begin to think I should just shut up.)

Something like that's already in the cards for 1994 ITTL.

Good to know I got something right.

I was trying to see for Senna was: "If you can't block a pass safely, stay close and counterattack immediately."

I don't recall that in Senna. It was more, "Give way, hell!" I always had a sense he needed to get a bit of maturity so he didn't break as much when he didn't absolutely have to. And I got the sense he was moving that way by '94--still a ways to go, but headed the right direction.

 

[athleticsfan2kx]

With Elkhart Lake getting a date, we will see the US Grand Prix making a reboot, next year.