The Impact of Fate

[Bezza]

Been doing a lot of research over the last few months in my spare time over F1 in days gone by, and had a thought about how different the history of F1 would be without the numerous acts of fate we have endured over the 60+ years.

Consider these examples, and potentially how different F1's results would have been:

Jim Clark, 1968 - Died whilst at the peak of his abilities, with Hill winning the title at the end of that year, surely had Clark not died he would have won the 1968 title, and then, judging by car performance, could have won in 1970 and 1972 - he would still only have been mid-late 30's which was normal in those days. Would Jochen Rindt have joined Lotus at all without Clark's death as well? And would Clark have continued with Lotus for his whole career?

Francois Cevert, 1973 - Was matching Stewart at the end of 1973 before his tragic death. In 1974 he would have been team leader - surely notching up more wins and potentially moving on to a Ferrari or McLaren in the coming years with his talent - the knock on effect on which would have displaced drivers such as Regazzoni or Mass for example.

Ronnie Peterson, 1978 - Sadly died at Monza, could have added another win before end of the season and was due to lead McLaren in 1979. How would he have fared there? Immensely talented but his performances were a bit up and down over his career. John Watson and Alain Prost were at McLaren in 1980, would it have been Watson who did not drive for McLaren, or would Prost not get his debut with McLaren?

Stefan Bellof, 1985 - Only two years into his career, I believe I am right in thinking he had a contract for Ferrari for 1986 before his death. Ferrari's 1986 drivers were Stefan Johansson and Michele Alboreto, and the car was not great. However, the 1987 car was better. Would Berger have joined Ferrari in 1987 if Bellof & Alboreto was the line up. It could have been Alboreto was replaced for Berger, instead of Johansson. Bellof looked in the Senna mould, could he have joined Williams or McLaren later?

Robert Kubica, 2011 - A modern one for you. Of course, Robert is thankfully still with us and on the mend. His life is not in danger, but is his career? How would he have performed in the Renault in 2011? Heidfeld would not have a final podium to his name. And going forward, Kubica was rumoured to Ferrari for either 2012 or 2013. Will this happen for him, even if he does return?

I've only scratched the surface really here - what about Peter Collins, Chris Bristow, Lorenzo Bandini, Piers Courage, Jochen Rindt, Ignazio Giunti, Roger Williamson, Tom Pryce, Gilles Villeneuve, Elio de Angelis & of course Ayrton Senna?

And then drivers who have had non-fatal but career-interrupting incidents. Are they ever 100% the same as they were before the crash - for example Niki Lauda, Olivier Panis, Felipe Massa ?

I am struck by how much effect fate can have over a sport like this.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

If Schumacher and Hill hadn't have collided in 1994 at Adelaide then Hill would be WDC in 1994&1996, probably wouldn't have been sacked my Williams for 1997, so Damon Hill could potentially have been a triple WDC.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Plus seeing how close Hill took Schumacher in 1994 and challenged at times during 1995, had Senna lived, would Michael have claimed his first 2 titles? Theres so many "what if's" in the history of this sport. :)

Titles for Senna in 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997. 7 time WDC.

Although I still believe Schumacher would have won in 1995.

[Malbec]

Monza 1988 for me seems almost religious in its series of coincidences.

With Senna and Prost well on the way to winning every single race for McLaren-Honda, Enzo Ferrari dies a few weeks before Monza, Ferrari's home race. Prost and Senna romp off in the lead, then Prost has an engine failure. Doesn't matter as Senna is on the verge of clinching victory anyway when he trips over Jean-Louis Schlesser and gets knocked out, handing Ferrari a home victory and the only non-McLaren winner of the season.

McLaren-Honda therefore were denied a clean sweep of the entire season at Monza thanks to Jean-Louis Schlesser whose uncle Jo Schlesser died in the Honda RA302 back in 1968, an accident that partially convinced Honda to withdraw first time round from F1.

[Mark]

Titles for Senna in 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997. 7 time WDC.

Although I still believe Schumacher would have won in 1995.

Would he have then gone to Ferrari if he and hill had one title apeice? We may well have seen in remain with Benetton for the 1997 season. Would he have gone to Ferrari at all? Would we have seen the domination of the early 2000's? It was an event that happened over a handful of seconds but had a profound impact.

[ArrowsFA1]

Ronnie Peterson, 1978 - Sadly died at Monza, could have added another win before end of the season and was due to lead McLaren in 1979. How would he have fared there? Immensely talented but his performances were a bit up and down over his career. John Watson and Alain Prost were at McLaren in 1980, would it have been Watson who did not drive for McLaren, or would Prost not get his debut with McLaren?
Ronnie was set to replace James Hunt for the 1979 season and I think that was a done deal by Monza. When Ronnie sadly died it was Watson who was signed to partner Tambay so the 1979 McLaren lineup would have been Peterson & Tambay. Tambay was highly regarded at McLaren at that time (they chose him over Gilles Villeneuve) and it would have been interesting to see whether the teams fortunes would have been any different. I think it's unlikely.

Ronnie was not known for his ability as a test/development driver and given the cars McLaren produced in 1979/80 he may have experienced much as he did while with Tyrrell. Of course he would have extracted the maximum out of the M28 & M29 but I wouldn't see him developing those cars into front runners.

I seem to recall reading that Peterson was talking of retirement and perhaps McLaren would have been his last team in F1. With that in mind, and given the way McLaren performed with Watson/Tambay, maybe Ronnie would have walked away into safe retirement at the end of 1979.

[jens]

Thats a good question, because Schumacher himself took an awful lot of convincing to go to Ferrari in the first place. Jean Todt (Ferrari) approached Willi Weber about the possibility of getting him onboard during 1995 and assured him big changes were being made at Maranello and they were a team of the future. Schumacher was convinced Williams was the team to drive for and he was right in the short term. Michael met with both teams concerning contracts and after months of Weber trying to convince him, he signed for Ferrari for '96. He admitted during 1996 he thought he'd made a big mistake, but I'm guessing when Brawn followed him for 1997, some of his faith was restored. Senna made close friends aware he had a desire to drive for Ferrari also, which is why I think circumstances may have been very different. Senna would have been 36 in 1996 and would we have seen them side by side at Ferrari, or Schumacher chasing his second title in an uncompetitive 1997 Benetton? Who knows? :)

I have read McLaren was seriously courting Schumacher too. Arguably when Mercedes and McLaren started a partnership in 1995, they were also interested in attracting Schumacher in doing so. Thinking that two big names (McL and Merc) together would make it an appealing combo for the German driver for the future. And IIRC during 1995 Schumacher was pretty much choosing between McLaren and Ferrari, but wasn't particularly fond of Ron Dennis personally, hence opted for Ferrari.

By the way, I don't think 1997 Benetton would have been uncompetitive if Team Schumacher had all stayed there. Pretty much the opposite. :p :

[BDunnell]

Ronnie was set to replace James Hunt for the 1979 season and I think that was a done deal by Monza.

Mention here of Hunt reminds me of the most interesting story told recently by former Ferrari team boss Daniele Audetto to Nigel Roebuck, and reported in Motor Sport — that Hunt had agreed at one stage (I forget exactly when, and indeed whether a contract had been signed) to go to Ferrari, but that the deal was blocked by, of all companies, Vauxhall. This was apparently due to Hunt having an advertising deal with Vauxhall. Now there's a 'what if', though I suspect the outcome would still have been Hunt retiring pretty much when he did.

[Bruce D]

Jim Clark, 1968 - Died whilst at the peak of his abilities, with Hill winning the title at the end of that year, surely had Clark not died he would have won the 1968 title, and then, judging by car performance, could have won in 1970 and 1972 - he would still only have been mid-late 30's which was normal in those days. Would Jochen Rindt have joined Lotus at all without Clark's death as well? And would Clark have continued with Lotus for his whole career?

Francois Cevert, 1973 - Was matching Stewart at the end of 1973 before his tragic death. In 1974 he would have been team leader - surely notching up more wins and potentially moving on to a Ferrari or McLaren in the coming years with his talent - the knock on effect on which would have displaced drivers such as Regazzoni or Mass for example.

Stefan Bellof, 1985 - Only two years into his career, I believe I am right in thinking he had a contract for Ferrari for 1986 before his death. Ferrari's 1986 drivers were Stefan Johansson and Michele Alboreto, and the car was not great. However, the 1987 car was better. Would Berger have joined Ferrari in 1987 if Bellof & Alboreto was the line up. It could have been Alboreto was replaced for Berger, instead of Johansson. Bellof looked in the Senna mould, could he have joined Williams or McLaren later?

I've only scratched the surface really here - what about Peter Collins, Chris Bristow, Lorenzo Bandini, Piers Courage, Jochen Rindt, Ignazio Giunti, Roger Williamson, Tom Pryce, Gilles Villeneuve, Elio de Angelis & of course Ayrton Senna?

I think the likelihood is that Clark would have stayed with Lotus for his whole career. He definately would have won all those titles you mentioned, but Rindt would probably have still moved there, but only in 1970 when Hill was dropped. The chance that Fittipaldi would have gone there would probably have been slim given they would have had Clark and Rindt.

As far as Cevert he could certainly have won the '74 title, because if you remember Scheckter was equal first in the title going into the final rounds in the same car and he was a rookie. The question is whether Cevert would have been as quick if he didn't have the motivation and help of Stewart alongside. Beyond that season I'm not sure. Tyrrell basically started to lose their way after that and he would probably have spent too long there. Maybe a move to McLaren or Ferrari would have happened later.

Bellof was part of the works Porsche sportscar team so it's likely the link to McLaren would have put him in one for '87 or something. Ultimately he would have probably wound up in Ferrari or Lotus. Remember in that particular era there were a lot of top drivers around and hardly any good cars, you basically had McLaren, Williams, and then Lotus and Ferrari, and then on the driver front you had Prost, Senna, Mansell, Piquet, Alboreto, so there was a lack of seats for the talent around.

Of the rest you mentioned: Collins should have won the '56 title but handed it (and his car) to Fangio so there you have it. I'm not sure he could have achieved more than he did. It might have been interesting to see what he could have done with the '61 Ferrari, he probably would have been champion then. I honestly don't know much about Bristow or Giunti so I won't comment there. Personally I believe Bandini achieved all he was ever going to. He could match Surtees on the day but not often enough to be a champion. Courage was good, but even by reading books about him he seemed a bit of a wild thing and car breaker. Rindt, hard to tell but probably would have won again in '72, but he was thinking hard about retiring and about making his own team with Ecclestone, so I don't think his mind was completely right anymore. Having read the book "The Lost Generation" I definately think Williamson could have been a big player in F1, he was certainly quick enough, but with who I'm not sure. I think he had a few deals in place at the time of his death. Tom Pryce was very talented, more than even books from the period let on, but he wasted it sitting at Shadow too long, he should have moved long before he died. If he had, then maybe we could have seen more and could have been able to tell. Villeneuve was brilliant to watch, but if the car was off the pace he was nowhere, he would drive the wheels off it but couldn't put together a championship fight. Him in the 1983 car would have been interesting, who knows, maybe he could have been champion then, but they would have also had to deal with Brabham cheating with the fuel in the end. De Angelis was a personal favourite of mine but I think the move to Brabham was a career mistake and I doubt he would have recovered much from it; remember that was his 8th season in F1 by then and it wasn't common to go much beyond 10. As for Senna, a little while ago I came across a website that gave a whole analysis of what might have happened had Senna not died based on a lot of logical argument of how the Williams performed after that. It's more than likely he would have won the '94, '95, '96, and '97 titles and then retired. That would have given him 7 titles, but somehow, given the level of respect he had for Fangio, I think he might have retired at 5 so as not to beat the legend.

[BDunnell]

As far as Cevert he could certainly have won the '74 title, because if you remember Scheckter was equal first in the title going into the final rounds in the same car and he was a rookie. The question is whether Cevert would have been as quick if he didn't have the motivation and help of Stewart alongside. Beyond that season I'm not sure. Tyrrell basically started to lose their way after that and he would probably have spent too long there. Maybe a move to McLaren or Ferrari would have happened later.

One might add: what if Stewart hadn't retired at the end of '73? He himself said recently that he thinks he could have been champion again in '74.

[Mark]

By the way, I don't think 1997 Benetton would have been uncompetitive if Team Schumacher had all stayed there. Pretty much the opposite. :p :

Quite so, don't underestimate the impact that Schumacher had in 1994 and 1995, it's quite possible he would have kept that going in the 1996 and 1997 seasons McLaren would likely have taken the titles in 1998-99 due to Renault's departure. Assuming Renault actually decided to leave the sport when they did.

[Bezza]

I am not a believer of an alternative universe theory where every decision creates a new universe, etc - however, if that did exist - just think of the millions of different F1 outcomes there could be!

[Mia 01]

I am not a believer of an alternative universe theory where every decision creates a new universe, etc - however, if that did exist - just think of the millions of different F1 outcomes there could be!

Quit so. "The impact of the broken window".

[Mark]

I am not a believer of an alternative universe theory where every decision creates a new universe, etc - however, if that did exist - just think of the millions of different F1 outcomes there could be!

But Vettel would still win in the end :mark:

[BDunnell]

I am not a believer of an alternative universe theory where every decision creates a new universe, etc - however, if that did exist - just think of the millions of different F1 outcomes there could be!

But the discussion is still very interesting, and thank you for having started it.

[Bezza]

Thanks, Ben. What strikes me most about F1 history, certainly in the older eras is how fate determined so much - from mortality through to simply choosing the right decision - being in the right car at the right time. Chris Amon for instance was a great driver, but always seemed to go a team when it wasn't quite at its best, and therefore never took a win. One decision different, and he could have been a champion, never mind just a race winner!

[wedge]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing in motor sports


F1 spelt backwards is if - Murray Walker

[BDunnell]

Thanks, Ben. What strikes me most about F1 history, certainly in the older eras is how fate determined so much - from mortality through to simply choosing the right decision - being in the right car at the right time. Chris Amon for instance was a great driver, but always seemed to go a team when it wasn't quite at its best, and therefore never took a win. One decision different, and he could have been a champion, never mind just a race winner!

I am especially pleased to see an interest being taken in F1 before you (or I) were born, and in an enlightened fashion. Nowadays a lot of modern 'fans' would dismiss Amon as unsuccessful, a loser, etc, when in reality both are miles from being the case. I don't believe one can be considered a true enthusiast of any sport without appreciation for and knowledge of its history.

[jens]

In terms of "fate" I like to think about drivers, how would their careers have panned out and how would they be viewed now in an alternative scenario. Either with the choice of a different team or the teams themselves would have performed differently. Looking at Button, it certainly creates some thoughts, as he has had two different kind of careers. Until 2008 in midfield, being written off as a consequence. But since 2009 three years in a top team on the trot, creating a completely different view about him. But as we remember, his career was close to coming to an end with 2008, had Brawn not saved the team. Without this "new" career he would never had the chance to create a new impression.

Had one team gone on to being successful instead of the other. For instance, had it been BAR-Honda (or Toyota) instead of Renault, who went on to build championship winning cars in mid-noughties, what would it have done to the careers of Button (Trulli) or Alonso? Heidfeld is another popular case - no top cars, no wins, but...


But Vettel would still win in the end :mark:

Which leads us to this... Had BMW-Sauber gone on to become a true top team instead of Red Bull (which around 07-08 seemed far more likely), Kubica could be considered as a true great now and Vettel could still be in midfield wondering, when is he going to get an opportunity to really prove himself at the top level.

[52Paddy]

I love this kind of discussions. Cheers for starting this Bezza :up: Some of my own favourite 'what ifs' would be:

Vanwall/Lewis-Evans: The very first constructor's champions. Vandervell's deteriorating health and a season marred by the death of promising upstart, Stuart Lewis-Evans damped the spirits of the team of subsequent entries proved unsuccessful. Had Lewis-Evans not died, could the team have found the energy to bring the 1958 championship into the following season? Or, if the team had still folded, would Lewis-Evans find a drive in a top end team?

Mercedes: After the 1955 Le Mans disaster, Mercedes decided to withdraw from all motorsports - an understandable but perhaps, unfortunate decision. Their two season in F1 proved to bring very impressive results and I'd guess that if they'd remained part of the sport (assuming the Le Mans incident never occured), they would have remained one of the big teams of the late 50s and carry that momentum into the 1960s. Hell, they would probably be a manufacturer right up to today without fail - I'm guessing their budget would suggest so.

Alessandro Nannini: Nannini was beginning to show some real speed by the time he suffered a career-ending hand injury in 1990. Maybe not world championship material but certainly a multiple race winner if he was to remain with Benetton. Would his presence at Benetton have affected the unknown quantity that was Michael Schumacher during the 1991 season?

[Malbec]

Had one team gone on to being successful instead of the other. For instance, had it been BAR-Honda (or Toyota) instead of Renault, who went on to build championship winning cars in mid-noughties, what would it have done to the careers of Button (Trulli) or Alonso? Heidfeld is another popular case - no top cars, no wins, but...

Lets play with that one a little.

What if Honda had not cancelled their F1 project in '99? Harvey Postlethwaite may not have died and the core of his design team who then were mostly snapped up at Renault would have stayed at Honda.

Renault probably wouldn't have done as well without the engineering talent they got from the cancelled Honda project and might not have been in a position to win championships.

How much better would Honda have done than BAR? I know that BAR got their hands on the Dallara Honda prototype and that it did a lot better than their '99 car on the test rig.

So, what would the implications have been? BAR wouldn't have had a works engine deal, Renault would have lost out and Honda would have been the 12th team so Toyota would have found it difficult to enter F1 (if there was a 12 team limit back then)....

[BDunnell]

Vanwall/Lewis-Evans: The very first constructor's champions. Vandervell's deteriorating health and a season marred by the death of promising upstart, Stuart Lewis-Evans damped the spirits of the team of subsequent entries proved unsuccessful. Had Lewis-Evans not died, could the team have found the energy to bring the 1958 championship into the following season? Or, if the team had still folded, would Lewis-Evans find a drive in a top end team?

Please, someone, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Lewis-Evans still being around would have helped Vanwall much given the way in which the team failed to move with the times post-1958.

[FAL]

It's quite likely any full team effort by Vanwall in 59 would have proved to have had an inferior car to the 59 Ferrari, leave alone the fast improving rear engined cars (as implied in the previous post). Vanwall was not the fastest reacting team, as witnessed by the fuel changes for 58/the bringing forward of the 58 Argentine GP.
Would Lewis-Evans have found a seat in 59? Somewhere, no doubt, but wasn't his health poor? (even if not as bad as Hawthorn's would have become, had he lived, retired or not)
Lewis-Evans had already had one Ferrari works drive in sports cars, so was not considered a one-team driver in the wider world. A Cooper (even a second Walker car?) to start 59, then taking Behra's seat at Ferrari is one possible scenario.

Re-Mercedes, hadn't thay already (in private) taken the decision to stop F1 for 56 before events at the 55 Le Mans? Le Mans only caused them to drop plans to continue in 56 in sports cars?

[D-Type]

Please, someone, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Lewis-Evans still being around would have helped Vanwall much given the way in which the team failed to move with the times post-1958.
At the end of 1958 Vanwall effectively withdrew. At this distance in time it's difficult to establish the real reasons. The record says that Tony Vandervell was having health problems (was it a heart attack?) and advised by his doctors to take it easier. On of the things he cut back was the racing team. The death of Stuart Lewis Evans certainly did upset Vandervell and no doubt was a factor in Vandervell's decision.

We now have to enter the realms of supposition. Had Lewis Evans not been killed, would this have been sufficient incentive for Vandervell to have kept the team going? If so, then it would have been a wholehearted commitment certainly with Moss and Lewis Evans as drivers and probably with Brooks as well. In 1959 front engined cars were still in contention - after all they took 3 wins to Cooper's 5 and Brooks missed the championship by a mere 4 points. A Vanwall would have been as competitive as BRM and Ferrari were. Then into 1960, if Vanwall had been fully committed to racing, they would certainly have produced a rear engined car and if not available at the beginning of the season it would certainly have emerged earlier than the BRM. I don't think that you should read too much into the fact that Vanwall failed to move with the times, this was because it was a low key and low budget operation that only happened because Vandervell didn't want to totally disband his development team.

The other supposition, if Vanwall had still withdrawn' which is likely as they had achieved what Vandervell set out to do, ie to beat the Italians, where would Lewis Evans have gone to? There was no doubt about his pace and everybody knew he was the junior driver at Vanwall with third choice of equipment in a period when the difference between individual cars was greater. So he would have been a marketable proposition, particularly with Bernie Ecclestone doing the marketing! Cooper had a full house, but BRM, Lotus or Ferrari would have been happy to have him on their strength. At BRM he would have been ranked ahead of Flockhart and would have been the youngster having to establish his position in comparison with veterans Bonnier and Schell. He would definitely have matched them for speed, but in race craft who knows? At Lotus, assuming Allison had still moved to Ferrari he would have been on a par with Graham Hill for experience and ahead of Alan Stacey and in contention for the top spot. He had driven before for Ferrari, at Le Mans in 1957 so they obviously knew what he was capable of. Given Ferrari's tendency to let a pecking order of drivers develop, I think Behra and Brooks would still have been contenders for unofficial no 1 and Lewis Evans would have been in competition with Phil Hill and Allison. The dark horse was Aston Martin - they used their established sports car drivers but had Stuart been available they might well have signed him up.

EDit: just to say that this was written without seeing FAL's post

[Bezza]

I love this kind of discussions. Cheers for starting this Bezza :up: Some of my own favourite 'what ifs' would be:

Alessandro Nannini: Nannini was beginning to show some real speed by the time he suffered a career-ending hand injury in 1990. Maybe not world championship material but certainly a multiple race winner if he was to remain with Benetton. Would his presence at Benetton have affected the unknown quantity that was Michael Schumacher during the 1991 season?

You know I meant to mention Nannini originally but it slipped my mind. The internet seems lack much info on Nannini, considering he was coming to the end of 1990 when he had his helicopter crash, did he have a contract for 1991? I am presuming yes - because Roberto Moreno, a driver not as good as Nannini, took over the last couple of races and then raced in 1991 too until Schumacher appeared on the scene.

Therefore, I am positioning that Nannini's hand injury was a key component of Michael Schumacher's early success. Nannini was quick and in 1991 may have beaten Piquet, who was at the end of his career.

Schumacher almost certainly, after his Belgium debut with Jordan, would not have gone to Benetton in 1991. He could have turned up there in 1992 after finishing the 1991 season with Jordan, taking over from Piquet or Nannini. Nannini could have stayed and Brundle would have had no 1992 drive. However, he could instead have tested for Williams instead of Damon Hill and ended up there in 1993 in his place!

[ArrowsFA1]

...did he have a contract for 1991? I am presuming yes - because Roberto Moreno, a driver not as good as Nannini, took over the last couple of races and then raced in 1991 too until Schumacher appeared on the scene.
My memory is probably failing me but I recall him having contact with Williams & maybe Ferrari around this time. IIRC he'd even given up his addictions to caffine & nicotine so he must have been taking F1 seriously but Sandro always appeared to me to enjoy life too much to take F1 too seriously.

[jens]

Nannini was improving steadily with each season in F1 and by 1990 he was very impressive. He made some mistakes, but from my recollection on average he was faster than Piquet that year. The battle with Schumacher in 1992 would have been interesting! Shame we didn't see more of him in F1, Kubica could fall into the same category. One race win for both, lots of promise in strong 3rd-4th best cars, but career didn't last long enough to get into true top cars...

---

As we are in such topic already...
It would be fascinating to play the following game throughout the whole history of F1 - if there were no deaths/career-ending injuries...(hence somehow always having the kind of safety we have now) We could get some fascinating driver line-ups in many periods. For instance imagine Senna and G.Villeneuve racing against each other. A mouthwatering prospect for many F1 fans that was never seen. Add in Pironi, de Angelis and Bellof for the late 80's too. Clark vs Rindt vs Stewart in early 70's in their primes. Also I guess the career of Moss would have been longer - battling against the rising Clark.

[Bruce D]

Taking it back even further I was thinking about this yesterday - what if Achille Varzi and Jean-Pierre Wimille hadn't died just before 1950 as they were arguably the top 2 drivers at that time but Fangio hadn't arrived in Europe yet.

What if WW2 hadn't happened, would the likes of Rosemeyer (provided he hadn't died right before it) and Caracciola have been really famous and world champions? And if Nuvolari had been younger?

These guys performed amazing things and yet modern day people don't know about them.

[Don Capps]

At the end of 1958 Vanwall effectively withdrew. At this distance in time it's difficult to establish the real reasons. The record says that Tony Vandervell was having health problems (was it a heart attack?) and advised by his doctors to take it easier. On of the things he cut back was the racing team. The death of Stuart Lewis Evans certainly did upset Vandervell and no doubt was a factor in Vandervell's decision.

You need to read the statement that Vandervell issued in January 1959 regarding the withdrawal of the Vanwall team from competition. It was very clear at the time that health issues were the primary factor in the decision, but also that the team had largely accomplished its mission of producing a machine fully capable of beating Ferrari. The death of Stuart-Evans certainly played a role, but probably not as large of one as many now assume.

Had Vandervell fielded a team for the 1959 season, one supported as it had been for 1958, with the cars updated and the Moss/Brooks team intact, it would have probably been very competitive and possibly a match for the Coopers under most conditions. Keep in mind that Ferrari gave the Coopers a true run for their money and did not lose the championship without a fight. One can easily imagine Vanwall being similarly combative during the season.

There is sufficient reason to think that even with 1959 being a season during which the front-engined cars continued to dominate, that Aston Martin would still have been a lost cause. Not a dark horse, but a nag also-ran.

However, the point remains that one can play Harry Turtledove and create all the alternative history one could wish, but still not alter what actually happened. Pipe dreams are still pipe dreams.

[Malbec]

What if WW2 hadn't happened, would the likes of Rosemeyer (provided he hadn't died right before it) and Caracciola have been really famous and world champions? And if Nuvolari had been younger?


If Hitler hadn't been a petrolhead Auto Union and Mercedes wouldn't have received so much state funding and have been so dominant. What effect would that have had on motorsport in Britain and France for example?

There wouldn't have been a VW or Porsche without Hitler's support either, and BMW would likely have stayed a small motorbike manufacturer. The various possibilities are endless.

[D-Type]

Y~
However, the point remains that one can play Harry Turtledove and create all the alternative history one could wish, but still not alter what actually happened. Pipe dreams are still pipe dreams.
One can sneeringly refer to Harry Turtledove, or one can see this as counterfactual history, ie the use the "what if" scenarios to gain an insight into the significance of events and decisions - a technique adopted by some modern historians but vilified by the traditional school.

[Don Capps]

One can sneeringly refer to Harry Turtledove, or one can see this as counterfactual history, ie the use the "what if" scenarios to gain an insight into the significance of events and decisions - a technique adopted by some modern historians but vilified by the traditional school.

Having nearly a shelf or so full of books by the good Dr. Turtledove and finding most -- but certainly not all by an means -- rather interesting and usually quite entertaining, I was unaware of there being any prohibitions here regarding sneering at "fictive history." "Counterfactual history" is simply a notion concocted by some of the more recent members within and outside the history community that is derived from good old-fashioned work known as analysis upon which historians -- traditional and modern (whatever than means) -- have always based their interpretations. Historians have always pondered the various "what if?" aspects in their efforts to attempt to arrive at some idea as to the "why" part of interpretation.

The use of the term "vilify" would suggest that someone has an opinion that is somewhat negative towards the way historians actually work. Of course, there is the point that writing "counterfactual history" does allow one to use what may have learned in the classroom are picked along the way while conducting research. However one slices it, "counterfactual history" is still fiction and not history when presented given that it is literally counter to the facts at hand.

It was not my intention to sneer, especially at dear ol' Harry, but I will now.

[Bezza]

........OK!

Was thinking more about this over the weekend and then when I saw the rumours of Kubica to Ferrari on BBC Sport Gossip the other day, which I did find strange considering he has not proved he his fit yet or has the same speed as before. Of course Fangio missed a whole season in 1952 through injury and it didn't seem to affect him.

It got me thinking about Kubica. Let's say he crashed his rally car further down the road, the armco didn't pierce the car and he walked away absolutely fine.

So, Kubica would drive for Renault again in 2011. Considering Petrov and Heidfeld managed a podium each at the start of the year, I would expect Kubica to have been well in a mix, possibly for a victory, certainly a 2nd place in those two races. After that, Renault have gone backwards, however with Kubica I believe he would have been a comfortable 7th in the championship ahead of Rosberg and Schumacher.

For 2012, I believe he would have replaced Felipe Massa at Ferrari. His talent and stock was so high that they would have paid Massa out of his final year to get him onboard.

[Bruce D]

I have to agree with you there.

[BDunnell]

A quick read of an article just now prompts me to ask what others think the outcome would have been of a great 'what if' — what if Ford had bought Ferrari in 1963?

[Bruce D]

We would probably never have seen the GT40, which would have been a major let down. I also think that eventually Ford would have sold it off to someone else, probably Fiat as Ford went downhill for a while after that.

[Mintexmemory]

2851

Interested in the Vanwall musings, what if they'd waited another year to watch what Lotus and BRM were up to? This 62 attempted comeback model that Surtees raced sporadically was closer to 59 Cooper emulation in design than the changes that were about to happen.

[vhatever]

Plus seeing how close Hill took Schumacher in 1994 and challenged at times during 1995, had Senna lived, would Michael have claimed his first 2 titles? Theres so many "what if's" in the history of this sport. :)

1994? Are you kidding me, schumacher was cheated out of racing/getting points in 4 races because of how dominant he was.

[D-Type]

1994? Are you kidding me, schumacher was cheated out of racing/getting points in 4 races because of how dominant he was.
Can we please avoid emotional unsubstantiated allegations such as this.

The record for 1994 shows
British GP - Disqualified for ignoring a black flag
German GP - Retired with engine failure
Belgian GP - Disqualified for excessive skid block wear
Australian GP - Collision with Hill.

[vhatever]

Oh my bad, I thought this was motorsport history, not motorsport fantasy. 1994 was just FIA trying to screw over schumacher, the end. Just like this year when they tried screwing over vettel with bogus mid season bans.

[BDunnell]

Oh my bad, I thought this was motorsport history, not motorsport fantasy. 1994 was just FIA trying to screw over schumacher, the end. Just like this year when they tried screwing over vettel with bogus mid season bans.

So this, in your mind, is what passes for 'history'?

[D-Type]

The record also shows that Benetton were fined $500,000 for failing to obey the instructions of race officials; and that in addition to being disqualified for disobeying a black flag, Schumacher was banned for two races.

The record also shows that Benetton were fined $100,000 for failing to supply the source code for their electronic systems and that when they did supply it, it was found that their software included code that provided launch control. The team admitted the code was there but staed it had been disabled. The FIA then insisted that such code should be removed.

The record also shows that Benetton illegally removed a filter from the refuelling system to speed up refuelling.

"History" starts with the facts and extends into interpretation of the facts. It is not history to totally distort the facts and introduce conspiracy theories - that is fantasy.

[vhatever]

and that in addition to being disqualified for disobeying a black flag, Schumacher was banned for two races.


Why did he get a black flag? He broke no written rule. they made the rule up on the spot, like some third world banana republic kangaroo court.

[D-Type]

Read the reports.
Schumacher overtook Hill on the formation lap, which was against the written rules. Due to an incident there was a second formation lap - And he did it again!. According to the rules he should have been made to start at the back of the grid. As they had not done so, the organisers instructed Benetton he should have a 5 second stop-go penalty. Benetton ignored the instruction, hence the $500,000 fine. As the team were ignoring the instruction the organisers used the black flag. Schumacher ignored it for several laps. Hence his $25,000 fine, disqualification and 2-race ban. Incidentally the clerk of the course who failed to implement the "start at the back" rule had his F1 licence suspended for a year.
Source: Autosport Grand Prix Review 1994

[vhatever]

Read the reports.
Schumacher overtook Hill on the formation lap, which was against the written rules. Due to an incident there was a second formation lap - And he did it again!. According to the rules he should have been made to start at the back of the grid. As they had not done so, the organisers instructed Benetton he should have a 5 second stop-go penalty. Benetton ignored the instruction, hence the $500,000 fine. As the team were ignoring the instruction the organisers used the black flag. Schumacher ignored it for several laps. Hence his $25,000 fine, disqualification and 2-race ban. Incidentally the clerk of the course who failed to implement the "start at the back" rule had his F1 licence suspended for a year.
Source: Autosport Grand Prix Review 1994


The contemporary rules had nothing mentioned about no overtaking, they specifically referred to being in the proper order when getting into the grid.

Schumacher didn't break the rules, further, they waited a half hour after the incident to issue to the stop and go, THAT what was "against the rules". So the stewards broke the rules, not schumacher. Benneton wasn't for sure if the stop/go was for the start of the race or not because of the massive time delay before the penalty, and then they black flagged schumacher, which he said he didn't see. Afterwards they straightened it all out and benneton agreed to do the stop/go penalty and be done with it. And that was supposed to be that. then, later, the FIA decided to turn it into an essential 3 race ban. The only people who broke any rules were the stewards. The only reason they did it is to slow down schumacher's utter domination of the season.

That's the REAL history.

[Robinho]

you forgot "the end" in your arguement

[D-Type]

The contemporary rules had nothing mentioned about no overtaking, they specifically referred to being in the proper order when getting into the grid.

Schumacher didn't break the rules, further, they waited a half hour after the incident to issue to the stop and go, THAT what was "against the rules". So the stewards broke the rules, not schumacher. Benneton wasn't for sure if the stop/go was for the start of the race or not because of the massive time delay before the penalty, and then they black flagged schumacher, which he said he didn't see. Afterwards they straightened it all out and benneton agreed to do the stop/go penalty and be done with it. And that was supposed to be that. then, later, the FIA decided to turn it into an essential 3 race ban. The only people who broke any rules were the stewards. The only reason they did it is to slow down schumacher's utter domination of the season.

That's the REAL history.
That's better:
No intemperate language
No unsubstantiated wild allegations that the FIA conspired to "screw over" a driver
No accusing the motor racing press of writing fantasy

Can we move onto questions of fact. Are you sure about the regulations? The closest I can find is the 1997 FIA Sporting Regulations. Regulation No. 142 includes the text:

"~
When the green lights are illuminated, the cars will begin the formation lap with the pole po0sition driver leading. During this lappractice starts are forbidden and the formation must be kept as tight as possible.
Overtaking during the formation lap is only permitted if a car is delayed when leaving its grid position and cars behind cannot avoid passing it without unduly delaying the rest of the field. In this case drivers may only overtake to re-establish the original starting order.
Any driver who is delayed leaving the grid may not overtake another moving car if he was stationary after the remainder of the cars had crossed the line, and must start the race from the back of the grid. If more than one driver is affected, they must line up at the back of the grid in the order they left to complete the formation lap.
A time penalty will be imposed on any driver who, in the opinion of the Stewards, unnecessarily overtook another car during the formation lap."

How did the rules differ in 1994? Did the British GP have any race-specific regulations?

I don't think there is any dispute about the issue of a time penalty or the use and meaning of the black flag so I am not going to go to the trouble of typing them out.

Can I remind you that this thread is about questions of opinion - "What if some factual event had not occurred or occurred differently?" . There should be no need to question the basic facts.

[vhatever]

How many times have you actually watched an f1 race? How many formation laps? How many times have you seen cars pull ahead of other cars? I've seen it dozens if not hundreds of time, and never once did anyone get a penalty -- except for schumacher.

The reason for what was essentially a 3 race ban was ignoring the black flag. Why was it when mansell did much worse for the initial black flag(driving in reverse down the pit lane) and was only excluded from 1 race. And after he continue to ignore the black flag, he crashed Senna out of the race! And he got ONE race ban?

They both ignored a black flag. Mansell goes on to crash Senna out of the race knowing his own race is already black flagged/dead. Net result? 1 race ban.

Schumacher ignores a black flag, stewards AGREE that there had been some miscomminucation and decided only give the original stop and go penalty, which schumacher takes during the race. 3 race ban.

[D-Type]

How many times have you actually watched an f1 race? How many formation laps? How many times have you seen cars pull ahead of other cars? I've seen it dozens if not hundreds of time, and never once did anyone get a penalty -- except for schumacher.

The reason for what was essentially a 3 race ban was ignoring the black flag. Why was it when mansell did much worse for the initial black flag(driving in reverse down the pit lane) and was only excluded from 1 race. And after he continue to ignore the black flag, he crashed Senna out of the race! And he got ONE race ban?

They both ignored a black flag. Mansell goes on to crash Senna out of the race knowing his own race is already black flagged/dead. Net result? 1 race ban.

Schumacher ignores a black flag, stewards AGREE that there had been some miscomminucation and decided only give the original stop and go penalty, which schumacher takes during the race. 3 race ban.
This has no relevance to the subject matter of this thread. Would you care to start a fresh thread to discuss these issues.

[vhatever]

This has no relevance to the subject matter of this thread. Would you care to start a fresh thread to discuss these issues.

Sure it does, as fate would have it the FIA is primarily run by greedy scammers, bigots, and morons. So save me the whole "but damon hill was sooo close to schumacher in 1994" nonsense as "fate/luck" was the only reason he was anywhere near him in the points to begin with.

[D-Type]

Language such as "greedy scammers, bigots and morons" is not acceptable on this forum.

Had things panned out differently by the end of the season we could have seen either
(a) Schumacher win the Championship by a large margin, or
(b) Benetton or Schumacher disqualified from the championship and Hill becoming champion. Admittedly unlikely but relevant to the "What if?" scenarios

The rights and wrongs of how we might have reached either of these points is what I am saying could be the subject a separate thread. This thread is concerned only with what might have happened following either of the alternatives.

[vhatever]

Language such as "greedy scammers, bigots and morons" is not acceptable on this forum.
Oh really?
http://www.motorsportforums.com/search.php?searchid=1171
http://www.motorsportforums.com/search.php?searchid=1172

Don't bother threatening me with any notifications or anything. If the admin here lets moderators abuse their powers and make threats because they simply are losing a debate horribly, then I wouldn't want to be here anyway.





The rights and wrongs of how we might have reached either of these points is what I am saying could be the subject a separate thread. This thread is concerned only with what might have happened following either of the alternatives.

And a much more likely alternative is Schumacher dominated the entire season in 1994. When I said as much I was set upon by others who disagreed for whatever reason, so I defended my point.

[D-Type]

Links don't work.

[52Paddy]

Stop complaining. It's ruining the thread.

I'm reading through a December 2004 issue of Motorsport News. There is an article at the beginning titled British rookies star in Formula One trials and it talks about tests run by McLaren and B.A.R. at Silverstone and Jerez respectively. McLaren tested Jamie Green, Alex Lloyd (both Autosport BRDC award winners) and a certain Lewis Hamilton. It was his first drive in an F1 car. B.A.R. was doing a driver assessment programme which included Adam Carroll, James Rossiter and Alan van der Merwe. Interesting how Hamilton was the only one to make it to F1.

The article above this one talked about a future test for Andy Priaulx at BMW. He was current WTCC champion and 30 years old at the time so his failure to reach F1 is, perhaps, less surprising.

[BDunnell]

The contemporary rules had nothing mentioned about no overtaking, they specifically referred to being in the proper order when getting into the grid.

Schumacher didn't break the rules, further, they waited a half hour after the incident to issue to the stop and go, THAT what was "against the rules". So the stewards broke the rules, not schumacher. Benneton wasn't for sure if the stop/go was for the start of the race or not because of the massive time delay before the penalty, and then they black flagged schumacher, which he said he didn't see. Afterwards they straightened it all out and benneton agreed to do the stop/go penalty and be done with it. And that was supposed to be that. then, later, the FIA decided to turn it into an essential 3 race ban. The only people who broke any rules were the stewards. The only reason they did it is to slow down schumacher's utter domination of the season.

That's the REAL history.

Produce some documentary proof for all of this, please. Otherwise those of us who are aware of the true definition of 'history' — of which, up to know, you have shown little understanding — will continue to believe only that what you're posting here is biased opinion.

[BDunnell]

Stop complaining. It's ruining the thread.

I agree. Shame.

Still, it's easy to come back on topic.

[wedge]

1994? Are you kidding me, schumacher was cheated out of racing/getting points in 4 races because of how dominant he was.


Can we please avoid emotional unsubstantiated allegations such as this.

The record for 1994 shows
British GP - Disqualified for ignoring a black flag
German GP - Retired with engine failure
Belgian GP - Disqualified for excessive skid block wear
Australian GP - Collision with Hill.


Incidentally the clerk of the course who failed to implement the "start at the back" rule had his F1 licence suspended for a year.
Source: Autosport Grand Prix Review 1994

And with good reason because there is more.


Produce some documentary proof for all of this, please. Otherwise those of us who are aware of the true definition of 'history' — of which, up to know, you have shown little understanding — will continue to believe only that what you're posting here is biased opinion.

Coming from some people who regards history highly....

vhatever does have a point and the controversy in 1994 is complex as commented in James Allen's Michael Schumacher/The Edge of Greatness

Regards to British GP. The rules say that you should hold formation or start at back of the grid but the resumed normally. The stewards took a long time deliberating and showed a black flag for penalty however the nature of the penalty was never explicit.

It was a '5 second penalty' but was this a stop-go penalty was never made explicit to the team. However the team knew the officials had made a grave error and argued that the time penalty should be added to the final result.

The Clerk of the Course failed to notify Benetton within 15mins but instead was expecting Shumi to serve the penalty within 3 laps of notice to the team.

However this didn't happen and the black flag was issued. Schumi claimed he didn't see (also Mansell's excuse at the 1989 Portugese GP). The black flag was shown for 3 laps then withdrawn at which point Schumi came in a served his 5 second stop-go.

Before the Spanish GP Flavio Briatore wrote a letter to the FIA questioning Max Mosley's leadership and arguably MM was looking for a vendetta.

The final paragraph:


You (Max Mosley) continue to insist on all these ill conceived measures. It is our opinion that the ability of yourself and your advisers to judge technical and safety issues in Formula 1 should be questioned

After the British GP Schumi was fined £15k and the £500,000 to Benetton arguably added insult to injury considering that claims of TC was never proven.

Schumi in hindsight:


My impression was that it was a set up and I was a scapegoat. We had a big lead in the championship and a lot of people were happy about us getting this penalty. The way Flavio Briatore dealt with it didn't really help either.

[D-Type]

I will repeat what I said before.

This thread relates to "What if?" certain events had not happened and their consequences, ie alternative history scenarios. It is not the place to discuss the ins and outs of any particular event or season.

If people want to discuss the detail of, for example, the 1994 season can they please open another thread.

[wedge]

I will repeat what I said before.

This thread relates to "What if?" certain events had not happened and their consequences, ie alternative history scenarios. It is not the place to discuss the ins and outs of any particular event or season.

If people want to discuss the detail of, for example, the 1994 season can they please open another thread.

Let me put this another way:

Had Flavio not written that letter to Max Mosely would there still have been a witch hunt against Benetton or even MM's safety leagacy?

[wedge]

In terms of "fate" I like to think about drivers, how would their careers have panned out and how would they be viewed now in an alternative scenario. Either with the choice of a different team or the teams themselves would have performed differently. Looking at Button, it certainly creates some thoughts, as he has had two different kind of careers. Until 2008 in midfield, being written off as a consequence. But since 2009 three years in a top team on the trot, creating a completely different view about him. But as we remember, his career was close to coming to an end with 2008, had Brawn not saved the team. Without this "new" career he would never had the chance to create a new impression.

I think the most important question is what if Bruno Junqueira had won the Williams shoot out and not JB? They were very, very close and IIRC Junqueira was quicker over a single lap.


Lets play with that one a little.

What if Honda had not cancelled their F1 project in '99? Harvey Postlethwaite may not have died and the core of his design team who then were mostly snapped up at Renault would have stayed at Honda.

Renault probably wouldn't have done as well without the engineering talent they got from the cancelled Honda project and might not have been in a position to win championships.

How much better would Honda have done than BAR? I know that BAR got their hands on the Dallara Honda prototype and that it did a lot better than their '99 car on the test rig.

So, what would the implications have been? BAR wouldn't have had a works engine deal, Renault would have lost out and Honda would have been the 12th team so Toyota would have found it difficult to enter F1 (if there was a 12 team limit back then)....

I don't think Renault benefited greatly from the acquisition of Honda's guys. They were a midfield team, there or thereabouts within reach of the front runners and I think Alonso elevated them in 2003.


You know I meant to mention Nannini originally but it slipped my mind. The internet seems lack much info on Nannini, considering he was coming to the end of 1990 when he had his helicopter crash, did he have a contract for 1991? I am presuming yes - because Roberto Moreno, a driver not as good as Nannini, took over the last couple of races and then raced in 1991 too until Schumacher appeared on the scene.

Therefore, I am positioning that Nannini's hand injury was a key component of Michael Schumacher's early success. Nannini was quick and in 1991 may have beaten Piquet, who was at the end of his career.

Schumacher almost certainly, after his Belgium debut with Jordan, would not have gone to Benetton in 1991. He could have turned up there in 1992 after finishing the 1991 season with Jordan, taking over from Piquet or Nannini. Nannini could have stayed and Brundle would have had no 1992 drive. However, he could instead have tested for Williams instead of Damon Hill and ended up there in 1993 in his place!


Nannini was improving steadily with each season in F1 and by 1990 he was very impressive. He made some mistakes, but from my recollection on average he was faster than Piquet that year.

It's very, very hard to say how good Nanni was or ever become but he perhaps deserved a win at the very least.

Piquet was getting a lot criticism for his Benetton days, certainly from James Hunt. Its often said that Piquet stayed in F1 for the money and drove within himself.

Moreno doesn't quite get the credit he deserves. James Hunt criticised Piquet because Moreno was giving him the hurry up - funnily enough it was rumoured Moreno was driving within himself because of his friendship with Piquet!

I think Schumi would still have ended up at Benetton. A team that could achieve race wins and therefore more potential and a driver 'past it' needing a hurry up and what we now know of Flavio, Flavio would most probably have got his man one way or other.

[FAL]

To put it yet another way: would Benetton have received as much "attention" from the FIA if Walkinshaw had never become involved there?

[wedge]

To put it yet another way: would Benetton have received as much "attention" from the FIA if Walkinshaw had never become involved there?

Walkinshaw certainly has previous with pushing the limits with the regs and perhaps it was he who instilled that ethos into Team Schumacher - Ross Brawn and the notorious Ferrari barge boards and arguing that Michelin created illegal tyres.

But I think Flavio's letter was the catalyst since we now know that Max does not hold grudges well and the whole affair snowballed after the British GP at the hearing. Earlier that year at the Pacific GP Nicola Larini admitted Ferrari was using TC and all they got was a slapped wrist whereas Benetton had fines on top of another.

[Bruce D]

I think the most important question is what if Bruno Junqueira had won the Williams shoot out and not JB? They were very, very close and IIRC Junqueira was quicker over a single lap.

Given Bruno's lack of success and consistency in Champcars after this test, even in top machinery like Newman / Haas and Ganassi he never really shone, it's unlikely that he would have been much to write home about in F1.

[wedge]

Given Bruno's lack of success and consistency in Champcars after this test, even in top machinery like Newman / Haas and Ganassi he never really shone, it's unlikely that he would have been much to write home about in F1.

True but the point was if/how JB would've ended up in F1 given his savvy management as he had already tested for Prost GP in '99.

[ArrowsFA1]

Piquet was getting a lot criticism for his Benetton days, certainly from James Hunt. Its often said that Piquet stayed in F1 for the money and drove within himself.
IIRC that picture of Piquet began when he joined Lotus in 1988. Camel stumped up a lot of cash but the Lotus performance, when compared with the dominant McLaren-Honda, was abysmal. It got worse in 1989 and Piquet was accused of being in 'cruise and collect mode'.

He signed for Benetton on a payment by results basis and won three races in two years. Not bad for an emerging team.

[Bruce D]

True but the point was if/how JB would've ended up in F1 given his savvy management as he had already tested for Prost GP in '99.

Ah yes, ok well in that case it would have been interesting to see when JB got into F1, if he would have at all. Given that Williams already had Montoya signed and were waiting for 2001 it's unlikely that Button would have gone to Williams, as Ralf had a good reputation at that stage.

[BDunnell]

IIRC that picture of Piquet began when he joined Lotus in 1988. Camel stumped up a lot of cash but the Lotus performance, when compared with the dominant McLaren-Honda, was abysmal. It got worse in 1989 and Piquet was accused of being in 'cruise and collect mode'.

As I recall, in Simon Taylor's excellent 'Lunch with Peter Warr' in Motor Sport a couple of years ago, Warr stated that he was aware that Piquet was not quite the competitor he had been when he signed him; that he had already been affected by the ways described here.

[wedge]

As I recall, in Simon Taylor's excellent 'Lunch with Peter Warr' in Motor Sport a couple of years ago, Warr stated that he was aware that Piquet was not quite the competitor he had been when he signed him; that he had already been affected by the ways described here.



IIRC that picture of Piquet began when he joined Lotus in 1988. Camel stumped up a lot of cash but the Lotus performance, when compared with the dominant McLaren-Honda, was abysmal.



Was '88 abysmal? Lotus were race winners at best. The domination of McLaren meant realistically the best result was the podium.

[Fortitude]

When Walkinshaw took over at Arrows F1, he had kept it at its original location? I have often wondered as the team in Bletchley there had done a remarkable job with very little resources. Arrows F1 wasn't a failed team, it was under financed, so moving to Leafield wasn't such a good idea, as Tom Walkinshaw had envisaged...

What if? The impact of fate. Now sadly, the Arrows F1 team is history.