ALL ABOUT FORMULA 1
REVIEWS OF ALL SEASONS
LANGUAGE
F1 ERRORS AND POLICIES
1) GP Italy 1978:
Andretti and Peterson disputed the title of the season in Monza. Just in that race, the FISA debuted the new green light starting system at the traffic lights, but it was not agreed with the track inspector notifying the CRO the moment all the cars were stopped on the grid.
Result: when Andretti and Villeneuve arrived at their positions on the grid, Race Director Gianni Restelli started the race, with some cars still moving and these cars had an acceleration advantage over the others that were stopped, forming a "cake" of cars at the end of the Monza straight. This error was not the cause, but it contributed to aggravating Ronnie Peterson's accident, who died the following day. At the time they wanted to blame Patrese, but in fact it was a mistake on the part of the Race Director. Peterson's accident could have been much less serious if the starting procedure had been done correctly as it is done today.
See the wrong starting procedure in the accident video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wk7uSuWPkE
2) GP Belgium 1981:
Ricardo Patrese let his Arrows die for the start of the 1981 Belgian GP, and frantically raised his hands to tell the Race Director that he did not abort the start. His mechanic entered the track to make the car start, when the other cars started and due to his bad luck, the car from the same team came from behind and ran over this mechanic. And even worse, the Race Management didn't want to interrupt the race to remove the injured mechanic, if it weren't for the pilots blocking the track, the race wouldn't be interrupted. Luckily he suffered broken legs and survived, but it was a succession of gross errors by the Race Director and the team's own mechanic that could have cost him his life.
3) 1982 season:
The 1982 season regulations mandated that cars be weighed after races, whereby before the final weigh-in, cars could be replenished with fluids lost during the race.
Result: the Brabham and Williams teams cunningly used a water tank that was emptied during the race to make them lighter and after the race they were filled up for the final weigh-in and remained within the regulatory weight. FISA discovered the trick and disqualified the cars in the 1982 Brazilian GP. Basically, FISA was to blame for leaving such a big loophole in the regulations, which would be easily used by the teams.
4) GP Brazil 1983:
At the 1983 Brazilian GP, Keke Rosberg's car caught fire, the fire was put out, he returned to the race and came in 2nd place. After the race he was disqualified for being pushed into the pits and FISA strangely decided that 2nd place would be vacant in the final result. The correct decision would be for all riders who arrived behind to move up one position, including Alain Prost who came in 7th place, should have won the 6th place point.
This foolish decision barely influenced the result of the 1983 championship, considering that at the end of the year Piquet This senseless decision barely influenced the result of the 1983 championship, considering that at the end of the year Piquet was champion with 59 points against 57 points for Prost, that is, the 1 point not given to Prost in the Brazilian GP, he did not make the Frenchman misses, but could have caused the title to change hands at the end of the year.
5) GP Monaco 1984:
The procedure for interrupting the famous 1984 Monaco GP was political and irregular, and the reasons are below.
First: Alain Prost was clearly losing performance with brake problems and Brazilian Ayrton Senna was catching up to him, taking 3 seconds off per lap, when the race was stopped, guaranteeing the Frenchman's victory.
Second, the red flag procedure requires the Race Director to stop the race, and then the Race Stewards to decide whether the race should continue or end definitively. But Jack Ickx and the representative of the Automobile Club de Monaco stopped the race with two flags, the red and the chequered, which is not supported by the rules. They usurped the authority of the Race Stewards, who should have decided whether or not to continue the race.
After the race there was even an investigation by FISA into the interruption of this race, but for obvious reasons it led to nothing, as Balestre was the main person interested in the maneuver. (See below report from Jornal do Brasil on June 9, 1984 pg 20)
After the race Jack Ickx gave an official interview saying that he was the one who interrupted, but in conversation with Reginaldo Leme he said that he was pressured by Jean Marie Balestre to end the race. (Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BTxEAPI68A&t=595s - Reginaldo Leme AUTOMOTOR)
In fact, it was yet another interference by the President of FISA in F1, but this time it ended up harming Alain Prost, as the Frenchman ended up losing the title at the end of the year by 0.5 points, due to the premature interruption of that race.
6) GP Spain 1987:
On lap 68 Prost passed Piquet under a yellow flag (see reproduction below), but Race Management did not punish the Frenchman. At that time, the regulation prohibiting overtaking under a yellow flag was not as strict as it is today, but everyone knows that FISA turned a blind eye to Balestre's favorite drivers.
7) 1989 season:
The 1989 season was characterized by the fight between Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost. The peak of this dispute was at the 1989 Japan GP, in which, after being overtaken, the Frenchman threw his car at the Brazilian, because if they both crashed, the championship would go to Prost. After the accident, the Frenchman got out of the car and went to the race's Control Tower, shortly afterwards Balestre ordered Senna to be disqualified. (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiTQ9PEbBBA and source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kmVzKikYQE&t=265s at minute 20).
Ron Dennis was a witness to everything that happened that day and said that Prost pressured the President of FISA to manipulate the result of the race. (Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfE8uoolrr0)
Remembering that in the past several riders had been pushed by the marshals to get out of a dangerous situation:
-
Alan Jones in Spain and Canada 81,
-
Mansell Belgium 82,
-
Piquet in Holland 85, Mexico 87 and Japan 88,
-
Martini in Australia 85,
-
Tambay in Hungary 86,
-
Herbert in San Marino 89,
-
Danner in Canada 89,
-
Alliot in Belgium 89.
-
Or had cut the chicane:
-
Pironi in Belgium 81,
-
Villeneuve and Jones in Austria 1981,
-
Piquet in San Marino 83,
-
Tambay in Italy 83,
-
Rosberg in Germany 86,
-
Berger in San Marino 88,
-
Nanini in England 88,
-
Prost in San Marino 89,
-
Mansell in Belgium 89.
None of these drivers were punished and/or disqualified, including Prost himself cutting the chicane in the 1989 San Marino GP, he would have to be disqualified if the same criteria used for Senna in Japan 89 were used. And as far as we know, Senna was the only driver in history disqualified for cutting the chicane.
Here is what was written in article 56 of the regulation (Source Anuário F1 1989 Francisco Santos pg 135):
"If a car stops, it must be removed from the track as quickly as possible, so that its presence does not constitute a danger, or jeopardize the race or training. If the driver cannot get his car out of a dangerous position by his own means, it is duty of track marshals to help him. In this case, the driver restarts the engine and returns to the race, without committing an infraction, will not be excluded."
What Balestre claimed about Senna's disqualification: “Senna made several mistakes: first, he passed inside the area that delimits access to the pits: then he should have abandoned his car, as Prost did: finally, by getting the inspectors had put his car in the middle of the track, he should have followed that route, instead of opting for the escape route”.
In fact, Balestre overrode the functions of the Race Director, distorted the interpretation of item 56, and based himself on the fact that the driver should complete 100% of the race route, to give the appearance of legality in Senna's disqualification, and to complete still invented an argument of "Dangerous Driving" that does not exist in the FIA regulations.
The situation was so strange that the Race Management documents were changed and later appeared with altered texts without the corresponding signature of the team manager. Later still, Balestre suspended Senna's super license and demanded an apology from the Brazilian, who was only able to drive the F1 car 15 days before the 1990 USA GP. (Source: Anuário F1 1989 Francisco Santos pg 139 to 140)
"The regulations are right, but they have to be applied correctly by people who know what the right values are. What is at stake is more than the decision now taken. As it is, it opens the door to all kinds of arbitrariness. " (Ron Dennis, Yearbook F1 1989 Francisco Santos pg 140)
At the GP Japan 90 briefing, Piquet said that if Senna's situation at the chicane happened again, it would be more dangerous to force the drivers to go back in the wrong direction and in a vote promoted by Balestre, all the drivers decided that it would not be necessary to use the wrong side to go back to the race, which made Senna angry, as he had been disqualified in 1989 for precisely that reason. As it became clear that his disqualification was political.
Before his death, Balestre confessed in all words: "I gave Prost a little help that day." (Jean Marie Balestre on 11/05/1996)
Years later, Nigel Mansell, who raced alongside Prost in the Ferrari, confirmed what we already knew about Prost's manipulations: "Alain was the teacher of manipulation and politics in F1". (Nigel Mansell)
Images reproduced: GP Japan 88 lap 10 (Piquet being pushed). GP San Marino 89 lap 45 (Prost cutting the chicane). GP Japan 89 lap 47 (Senna and Prost). Folha de São Paulo newspaper 06/11/1996 pg 36 (Balestre helped Prost).
-
At GP Japan 88 lap 10, Piquet went into the gravel box and was pushed by the inspectors and was not disqualified.
-
At San Marino 89 lap 45, Prost cut the chicane and was not disqualified.
-
In GP Japan 89 Senna had a similar situation to these two, but strategically Balestre applied a very different criterion with the Brazilian.
It was absolutely clear that Balestre "forked" Senna that day, given that the order to punish Senna came from him, but we must mention that even if he didn't disqualify the Brazilian, Prost would be the 1989 champion anyway, why would Senna need winning the 1989 Australian GP, but in that race in the rain he crashed into the back of Martin Brundle. In fact, Senna had many problems (breakdowns and accidents) in 1989.
8) Berger’s McLaren at the 1992 Canadian GP:
F1 in 1992 was losing audience due to the overwhelming dominance of Wiliams who had a car 2 s faster than any car on the grid. In the 1992 Canadian GP, Senna, Mansell and Patrese had problems and retired. Berger ended up inheriting the victory, but his car had a rear wing affixed a few millimeters outside the location allowed by the regulations, but FISA turned a blind eye and confirmed the Austrian's victory. James Hunt was disqualified in the 1975 Spanish GP due to an equal situation, but sometimes politics speaks louder. (Source: Yearbook FS 1992 pg 111)
9) 1994 season:
The 1994 season regulations prohibited the use of electronic devices, it was discovered in free practice at the Pacific GP that Ferrari was using CT. After the San Marino GP, the FIA asked the top three for the cars' software and it was discovered that McLaren had an automatic transmission and Benetton had "launch control" in Schumacher's car. The FIA technical inspection found an option 13, hidden from the MENU of the Benetton control unit and this device could easily be used during races.
There was also the episode of the German GP, when it was discovered that the filter had been removed from the Benetton fuel hose. As the supplier of the supply equipment authorized in writing the removal of the filter from the Ligier hose (a team in which Briatore was the owner) and Benetton also removed the filter. At the time they claimed that the mechanic removed it without consulting the team, but everyone knows that no mechanic would do that... In short, Flavio Briatore threatened to "throw shit on the fan" if Benetton was punished, and it worked.
On 29 June 1994, the FIA ruled that there was no conclusive evidence that Benetton's launch control had been used. This justification is quite strange, as no one in F1 keeps a device in the car not to be used. In other words, political pressure from Benetton had an effect and the FIA POLITICALLY DID NOT DISCLASSIFY ANYONE.
At GP England 94, Race Management imposed a stop and go penalty on Schumacher for passing Hill on the formation lap. Schumacher completed the stop and go several laps later, and ended up being disqualified and prevented from racing for two more races (Italy and Portugal), an extremely severe punishment. With this, Damon Hill "artificially" reached the German's score at the end of the season. It was clear that the FIA wanted to compensate for something it failed to do during the year.
If Senna didn't die, we can imagine that these punishments given to Schumacher would hardly happen, and the FIA would leave the dispute on the track free between the drivers without political interference.
Years later Willem Toet of Benetton reported that Benetton's CT was mechanical. His explanation was completely contradictory, as everything he said was electronic help in essence, so it would be irregular in the same way. When asked about MENU 13 with "launch control" on the steering wheel of Schumacher's car, he said he was unaware of it, which is strange to say the least, since as the car's engineer he should have known about this system. His explanation was not convincing.
Here are the terms that Willem used about the supposed non-electronic CT:
-
“high precision sensors”,
-
“collect data with levels of adherence of the asphalt”,
-
“staged acceleration rate control”,
-
“cuts the ignition levels”,
-
“it cut the low voltage transferred to the coils”.
Jos Verstappen made a statement about Schumacher's Benetton in 1994:
"There were electronic riding aids. It was never mentioned, but I'm convinced, and later when I asked Flavio Briatore, he said 'let's not talk about it'. So now I know enough. Like everyone else, Michael it also depends on your car. For most people he was a god, but he's not a superman - in karting he never beat me." (Jos Verstappen).
10) 1998 season:
In 1998 the FIA made very benevolent decisions regarding Ferrari. At the beginning of the season, the FIA banned McLaren's asymmetric brakes more as a way of taking away the English team's technical advantage than due to irregularity, as there was nothing in the regulations prohibiting their use, so much so that it will only be in the second half of 2024, the FIA placed an item in the regulations prohibiting such a device.
At the Canadian GP, Schumacher pushed Frentzen out of the pits and took a 10-seconds penalty that was served by the German. On lap 38 Schumacher passed Hill cutting the chicane, took advantage of the maneuver, but the Race Direction turned a blind eye, despite the protest from the Williams team.
At the British GP, Schumacher passed Wurz under a yellow flag and took a written stop and go penalty referring to article 57 letter "c" of the regulations. Jean Todt, mischievously, generated a doubt regarding which item in the article would be the punishment (item "c" or "e"), precisely to postpone the punishment for as long as possible, so that it would be fulfilled at the end of the race. The plan worked, on the last lap Schumacher won the race by crossing inside the pits and completed the stop and go with the race already won. In other words, he had an advantage, as he did not comply with the punishment.
McLaren at the time protested, but the FIA Court of Appeal claimed that the punishment was applied after 31 minutes, and the regulations stated that communication of the punishment had to be made within 25 minutes and otherwise the punishment was not passed on to the Control Tower. There were so many mistakes that the punishment was canceled and that was it.
11) GP Malaysia 2002:
The 2002 season was characterized by Ferrari's dominance in racing, but in the Malaysian GP 2002, Schumacher and Montoya started side by side, the German missed the brakes and ran over Montoya, lost his nose and almost threw the Colombian out of the track. Strangely, the Race Direction clears Schumacher and gives a Drive Through penalty to Montoya, who was actually a victim of the German's wrong maneuver. Montoya was the first to take such a punishment in F1, the result of a gross misinterpretation by Race Direction.
Even Schumacher acknowledged that the Colombian's punishment was unfair.
12) 2006 season:
The 2006 season was marked by the fight between two super drivers: Michael Schumacher and Fernando Alonso. The Renault team used Mass Shock Absorbers that had been approved by the FIA since 2005. But strangely they were banned in the middle of the 2006 season, something totally abnormal, as you cannot change the homologation of a piece of equipment while the championship is in progress. As a result, the Renault car's performance deteriorated, Ferrari improved and Fernando Alonso narrowly missed the championship.
And he still had the controversial penalty at the Italian GP, where Alonso lost his 3 best times in Q3, for allegedly hindering Massa on his fast lap, when in fact the Spaniard was 100 meters ahead of the Brazilian. Because of this punishment Alonso had to start in 10th place.
Everything indicates that the FIA acted POLITICALLY, to benefit Ferrari and make Schumacher enter the fight for the championship with Alonso, in his farewell to F1. It was a shame.
13) 2008 Season:
In 2008 the FIA applied strange and controversial punishments to Hamilton, giving the impression that they wanted to push the title decision to the Brazilian GP, which in fact happened.
In the 2008 Belgian GP, Hamilton, when trying to overtake Raikkonen, cuts the chicane but returns the position and passes the Finn in the next corner. The FIA gave the English 25 second penalty at the end of the race and put the item in the regulations after the penalty, something never seen in F1, because if the prohibitive item entered the regulations after the fact, the Englishman could not have been punished.
At the Japanese GP 2008, Hamilton takes the lead at the start on a slightly damp track, then leaves the track and returns behind Felipe Massa. On lap 2, the Englishman overtakes the Brazilian at the chicane, Felipe tries to get back, hits the McLaren and makes the Englishman spin. The FIA gave STOP AND GO to both drivers, claiming that Massa caused the incident and that Hamilton made a dangerous start, when he should only have punished the Brazilian.
There was the impression that the FIA was trying to push the title dispute to Brazil, as they knew that the 2008 Singapore GP was rigged and that made Felipe Massa lose important points, so they tried to compensate somehow..
Moment of Massa touching Hamilton at Japan 2008
14) GP Abu Dhabi 2021:
The 2021 season was one of the most balanced of all time, and disputed between two great drivers, but the Test Direction at GP Abu Dhabi made a mistake. At the end of the race, the Englishman was leading and was heading to OCTA, when Race Management ordered the Safety Car to enter with 4 laps to go. By not issuing a red flag, Race Management gave a huge strategic advantage to the Red Bull team.
The advantage came from Red Bull's power of choice after Hamilton's passing:
-
If Hamilton entered the pits, Verstappen would remain on the track to stay ahead and try to "close the door" on Hamilton, because if both crashed, the Dutchman would be favored.
-
If Hamilton didn't enter the pits, Verstappen would change his tires to super soft tires and go on the attack on the last lap, which actually happened.
The impression was left that it was not a deliberate error, but rather a failure in Michael Massi's (Races Director) assessment of the regulations and possible consequences in the championship decision. But the worst mistake of all was that the Race Director only allowed the stragglers who were between Verstappen and Hamilton to take a lap advantage over the leader, before the restart, so Hamilton was in Verstappen's "target range".
Some people say it was a "stolen" championship, but in my humble opinion, I don't think it was.
If Michael Massi had wanted to harm Hamilton, he would have punished him at the start of the race, when the Englishman, when overtaken by Verstappen, cuts the path off the track and regains position, but the Englishman was not punished. In episode 10 of the series "Drive to Survivor 2021", it was said that the stewards realized that Verstappen "gave up his advantage" on the lap he overtook Hamilton, as if the Dutchman had done it on purpose to make Perez reach Hamilton, so for this reason the stewards left Hamilton in the lead of the race.
15) Red Bull exceeds the budget limit in the 2022 season:
The FIA confirmed that the Red Bull team exceeded the budget limit of US$ 140 million foreseen for the 2022 season, but punished the team by reducing the time in the wind tunnel by 10% for 2023, meaning they would be entitled to 70% of the time, but that time has been reduced to 60%. Absolutely insignificant and ineffective punishment.
The fact that the Austrian team had a budget advantage led them to come out ahead in terms of developing their car, which quickly became the best on the grid. With this, Red Bull achieved victories and important points to take the lead in the championship and it would be difficult for other teams to achieve it, due to the budgetary limitation imposed by the FIA, but which was not respected by Red Bull. In other words, the team circumvented the regulations and took advantage of this advantage. Christian Horner denied it... but it was a very well thought out kind of cheating.
The FIA was wrong to give a lenient punishment, setting a dangerous precedent for other similar situations in the future.
ro.
16) USA-Austin GP 2024:
On lap 52 of the US GP 2024, Lando Norris tries to overtake Max Verstappen on the outside, the Dutchman defends his position by braking later, goes straight into the curve and forces Norris to leave the track and the Englishman gains the position of the Dutchman, both of whom left the track. The stewards gave Norris a 5-second penalty, when it should have also been given to Verstappen, benefiting the person who caused the near-accident involving the two title candidates, who was the Dutchman.
Many F1 experts did not agree with the punishment given only to Norris, as for the sake of justice they should have given the punishment to both drivers. Gross evaluation error, similar to that of Schumacher-Montoya in the 2002 Malaysia GP.
