What If?

The place for anything and everything else to do with F1 history, different forms of motorsport, and all other randomness
User avatar
Salamander
Posts: 9570
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 20:59
Location: trapped on some prison island

Re: What If?

Post by Salamander »

The problem with Stewart is that he was always hyper-aggressive - he'dve been the American Maldonado.
Sebastian Vettel wrote:If I was good at losing I wouldn't be in Formula 1.
Everything's great.
I'm not surprised about anything.
Whiteshore
Posts: 165
Joined: 17 Aug 2015, 00:03

Re: What If?

Post by Whiteshore »

What if Carlin instead of Manor entered F1 in 2010? What drivers would have driven for them? Would they have fared better or worse than Manor?
Unafraid of the papaya!
User avatar
Bobby Doorknobs
Posts: 4059
Joined: 30 Jul 2014, 17:52
Location: In a safe place.

Re: What If?

Post by Bobby Doorknobs »

Whiteshore wrote:What if Carlin instead of Manor entered F1 in 2010? What drivers would have driven for them? Would they have fared better or worse than Manor?

They might have ended up with Glock and some other GP2 graduate if not di Grassi. They might have initially done better than Manor if they adopted a more conventional non-CFD approach to chassis design, but would still have been ultimately doomed to be backmarkers because of the false promise of a budget cap.
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
AndreaModa
Posts: 5806
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 17:51
Location: Bristol, UK

Re: What If?

Post by AndreaModa »

Noticed from an old Autosport article towards the end of 2009, before Toyota pulled the plug, that Kobayashi was being touted as getting a full-time drive at the team after his impressive two race debut filling in for Glock.

So, what if Toyota had carried on into 2010 with their supposedly very competitive TF110, and what if Kamui was driving? Podiums? Wins? Do we dare dream of a championship challenge a la Brawn the previous season?
I want my MTV...Simtek Ford

My Motorsport Photos

@DNPQ_
User avatar
Aguaman
Posts: 669
Joined: 22 Sep 2014, 15:16

Re: What If?

Post by Aguaman »

AndreaModa wrote:Noticed from an old Autosport article towards the end of 2009, before Toyota pulled the plug, that Kobayashi was being touted as getting a full-time drive at the team after his impressive two race debut filling in for Glock.

So, what if Toyota had carried on into 2010 with their supposedly very competitive TF110, and what if Kamui was driving? Podiums? Wins? Do we dare dream of a championship challenge a la Brawn the previous season?


It's Toyota. They would have somehow messed it up. Podiums most likely.
User avatar
Peteroli34
Posts: 1957
Joined: 25 May 2013, 10:01
Location: Thurrock, Which isn't London

Re: What If?

Post by Peteroli34 »

AndreaModa wrote:Noticed from an old Autosport article towards the end of 2009, before Toyota pulled the plug, that Kobayashi was being touted as getting a full-time drive at the team after his impressive two race debut filling in for Glock.

So, what if Toyota had carried on into 2010 with their supposedly very competitive TF110, and what if Kamui was driving? Podiums? Wins? Do we dare dream of a championship challenge a la Brawn the previous season?


If Toyota had stayed in F1 in 2010 surely that would have meant a full 26 car grid. If Kobayashi had stayed at Toyota would Glock or Trulli have stayed and who then would have got the Sauber or Lotus/Virgin seat.
User avatar
Aguaman
Posts: 669
Joined: 22 Sep 2014, 15:16

Re: What If?

Post by Aguaman »

peteroli34 wrote:
AndreaModa wrote:Noticed from an old Autosport article towards the end of 2009, before Toyota pulled the plug, that Kobayashi was being touted as getting a full-time drive at the team after his impressive two race debut filling in for Glock.

So, what if Toyota had carried on into 2010 with their supposedly very competitive TF110, and what if Kamui was driving? Podiums? Wins? Do we dare dream of a championship challenge a la Brawn the previous season?


If Toyota had stayed in F1 in 2010 surely that would have meant a full 26 car grid. If Kobayashi had stayed at Toyota would Glock or Trulli have stayed and who then would have got the Sauber or Lotus/Virgin seat.


NAKAJIMA!!!!
User avatar
James1978
Posts: 3033
Joined: 26 Jul 2010, 18:46
Location: Darlington, NE England

Re: What If?

Post by James1978 »

I reckon Heidfeld would have got the Sauber gig.
"Poor old Warwick takes it from behind all throughout this season". :) (Tony Jardine, 1988)
User avatar
Dj_bereta
Posts: 1513
Joined: 30 Aug 2009, 15:55

Re: What If?

Post by Dj_bereta »

peteroli34 wrote:
AndreaModa wrote:Noticed from an old Autosport article towards the end of 2009, before Toyota pulled the plug, that Kobayashi was being touted as getting a full-time drive at the team after his impressive two race debut filling in for Glock.

So, what if Toyota had carried on into 2010 with their supposedly very competitive TF110, and what if Kamui was driving? Podiums? Wins? Do we dare dream of a championship challenge a la Brawn the previous season?


If Toyota had stayed in F1 in 2010 surely that would have meant a full 26 car grid. If Kobayashi had stayed at Toyota would Glock or Trulli have stayed and who then would have got the Sauber or Lotus/Virgin seat.


If I remember well, the car limit was 24 in 2010 season. Toyota staying means no Caterham. So, Kovalainen retiring from F1. About Toyota drivers, Trulli and Kobayashi looks like the most realistic outcome, since the team wanted to fire Glock in the same way BMW did with Villeneuve.
Waiting for Lotus hiring Johnny Cecotto jr.
User avatar
Bobby Doorknobs
Posts: 4059
Joined: 30 Jul 2014, 17:52
Location: In a safe place.

Re: What If?

Post by Bobby Doorknobs »

Dj_bereta wrote:
peteroli34 wrote:
AndreaModa wrote:Noticed from an old Autosport article towards the end of 2009, before Toyota pulled the plug, that Kobayashi was being touted as getting a full-time drive at the team after his impressive two race debut filling in for Glock.

So, what if Toyota had carried on into 2010 with their supposedly very competitive TF110, and what if Kamui was driving? Podiums? Wins? Do we dare dream of a championship challenge a la Brawn the previous season?


If Toyota had stayed in F1 in 2010 surely that would have meant a full 26 car grid. If Kobayashi had stayed at Toyota would Glock or Trulli have stayed and who then would have got the Sauber or Lotus/Virgin seat.


If I remember well, the car limit was 24 in 2010 season. Toyota staying means no Caterham. So, Kovalainen retiring from F1. About Toyota drivers, Trulli and Kobayashi looks like the most realistic outcome, since the team wanted to fire Glock in the same way BMW did with Villeneuve.

Actually, the grid size limit has for many years been 26. There would have been 26 cars on the 2010 grid had US F1 not collapsed in February. I might be misremembering something myself, but I think Toyota staying might actually have meant that Sauber would not have had a place on the grid.
Last edited by Bobby Doorknobs on 17 Dec 2015, 00:50, edited 1 time in total.
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
Peteroli34
Posts: 1957
Joined: 25 May 2013, 10:01
Location: Thurrock, Which isn't London

Re: What If?

Post by Peteroli34 »

Dj_bereta wrote:
If I remember well, the car limit was 24 in 2010 season. Toyota staying means no Caterham. So, Kovalainen retiring from F1. About Toyota drivers, Trulli and Kobayashi looks like the most realistic outcome, since the team wanted to fire Glock in the same way BMW did with Villeneuve.



13 teams were originally entreated for 2010. The 10 from 2009 plus HRT, Virgin and USF1. BMW Sauber then withdrew and its entry went to Lotus. Toyota then withdrew its place went to Sauber .USF1 then disappeared.

In This timeline BMW Sauber withdrawal would have gone to Lotus as it did in reallife with Sauber being giving USF1 place on the grid.
User avatar
Bobby Doorknobs
Posts: 4059
Joined: 30 Jul 2014, 17:52
Location: In a safe place.

Re: What If?

Post by Bobby Doorknobs »

peteroli34 wrote:
Dj_bereta wrote:
If I remember well, the car limit was 24 in 2010 season. Toyota staying means no Caterham. So, Kovalainen retiring from F1. About Toyota drivers, Trulli and Kobayashi looks like the most realistic outcome, since the team wanted to fire Glock in the same way BMW did with Villeneuve.



13 teams were originally entreated for 2010. The 10 from 2009 plus HRT, Virgin and USF1. BMW Sauber then withdrew and its entry went to Lotus. Toyota then withdrew its place went to Sauber .USF1 then disappeared.

In This timeline BMW Sauber withdrawal would have gone to Lotus as it did in reallife with Sauber being giving USF1 place on the grid.

I was going to edit my previous post (again), but it will be easier to say it here: I doubt Sauber would have gained an entry for 2010 with US F1 dropping out. Pre-season testing was already almost finished by the time US F1 collapsed and it probably would have been at too short notice for Sauber to get a spot.
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
Peteroli34
Posts: 1957
Joined: 25 May 2013, 10:01
Location: Thurrock, Which isn't London

Re: What If?

Post by Peteroli34 »

Simtek wrote:I was going to edit my previous post (again), but it will be easier to say it here: I doubt Sauber would have gained an entry for 2010 with US F1 dropping out. Pre-season testing was already almost finished by the time US F1 collapsed and it probably would have been at too short notice for Sauber to get a spot.


That would probably be true does that mean then that they would have been granted a 2011 entry
User avatar
Bobby Doorknobs
Posts: 4059
Joined: 30 Jul 2014, 17:52
Location: In a safe place.

Re: What If?

Post by Bobby Doorknobs »

peteroli34 wrote:
Simtek wrote:I was going to edit my previous post (again), but it will be easier to say it here: I doubt Sauber would have gained an entry for 2010 with US F1 dropping out. Pre-season testing was already almost finished by the time US F1 collapsed and it probably would have been at too short notice for Sauber to get a spot.


That would probably be true does that mean then that they would have been granted a 2011 entry

That is certainly possible, I do remember entries still being open for 2011, and Sauber at least had a chassis, even if it was a bit outdated.
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
AndreaModa
Posts: 5806
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 17:51
Location: Bristol, UK

Re: What If?

Post by AndreaModa »

Yeah, the FIA upped the grid limit from 24 to 26 during 2009 when the new budget cap rules were floating around and the new teams were admitted.

I don't think Glock would have got the Toyota seat, because from reading interviews he did when he signed for Virgin, it appeared he'd made the decision to leave prior to the Japanese GP weekend when he crashed and hurt his leg.

So by extension, I would have thought that the team would have had at least Kobayashi, and either Trulli or Nakajima. There were a few stories in mid to late 2009 saying Trulli might leave the team. That may be connected to the Lotus entry however, so I think it would be reasonable to assume Lotus would have the same lineup of Trulli and Kovalainen, Toyota would have had a Japanese dream team of Nakajima and Kobayashi, Virgin would have had Glock and Di Grassi, and USF1 would have gone bust.

Simtek is right I believe, I don't think there would have been time for Sauber to join once USF1 pulled out - they were still asking, right until the very end, to have their entry deferred to the Spanish GP. But I think a lot of this was hinging on using the TF110 in partnership with Stefan GP, who were still angling for an entry themselves. So perhaps you could assume that with Toyota continuing with their entry, USF1 would have had fewer options available to them, Stefan GP wouldn't be a thing at all, and so maybe USF1 might have gone bust earlier? Thus, might there have been time for Sauber to join the grid? I guess it would hinge on whether Sauber would have continued to develop the car over the winter in the hope of getting an entry at the last minute. A big gamble.
I want my MTV...Simtek Ford

My Motorsport Photos

@DNPQ_
User avatar
gnrpoison
Posts: 235
Joined: 01 Sep 2009, 00:30

Re: What If?

Post by gnrpoison »

I wonder if they would have just increased the entrant size to 28, as I imagine given the Formula Elaborate Bluff earlier in the season nearly splitting the championship, be better to get a team that has a history of F1 on the grid then to allow the space just for the new entrants and the uncertainity of some of the teams actually showing up in Australia. Plus I imagine Ferrari may have lobbied on Sauber's behalf to ensure they survive as imagine would have been a backlash at allowing a team that could be competitive to lose its entry due to BMW leaving. Perhaps 26 grid is the limit and so DNQs come back if by some miracle USF1 actually appear and we have 28 cars entered. If that is the case no resurrection of the 107% qualifying rule because a full grid means slowest car is not in the race. A fight between USf1 and HRT to qualify which means in Canada, no Ferrari angry at being held up by a backmarker as HRT may not qualify in that race. Be good also to see some rare DNQs when drivers are eliminated due to mechancial problems and have not set a lap, could Malaysia see a big gun out of the race due to the weather. Toyota probably do reasonable enough to ensure Top 6 in Constructors with Trulli and Kobayashi. Trulli maybe has a longer career due to not having to go to Lotus. I imagine Williams still have Toyota engines, so does Nakajima have one of the seats leaving Barrichello to retire or Hulkenberg to not enter F1 in 2010? No Maldonado for 2011 a possibility? I reckon USf1 and or HRT probably don't make it to 2013 or even to end of 2011, Virgin and Lotus/Caterham maybe fold earlier as harder to get top 11 with 14 teams if Concorde Agreement isn't rewrote to allow more money. I imagine no ART F1 bid either as no space unless they are generous and allow a 15th team but probably unlikely.
User avatar
girry
Posts: 835
Joined: 31 May 2012, 19:43

Re: What If?

Post by girry »

There were major stories in finland in 2009 that Kovalainen was going to sign for Toyota after getting ousted from McLaren, that was until Toyota pulled the plug too...so, suppose he would have signed for them, alongside Kobayashi likely.

ed - had the teams pulling out and joining in timeline wrong in my mind
when you're dead people start listening
User avatar
Rob Dylan
Posts: 3477
Joined: 18 May 2014, 15:34
Location: Andy Warhol's basement

Re: What If?

Post by Rob Dylan »

This has probably been asked at the time, but if Hamilton had decided to stick at McLaren, who would have taken the second Mercedes seat instead?
Murray Walker at the 1997 Austrian Grand Prix wrote:The other [Stewart] driver, who nobody's been paying attention to, because he's disappointing, is Jan Magnussen.
Felipe Nasr - the least forgettable F1 driver!
User avatar
tBone
Posts: 523
Joined: 29 Dec 2014, 11:20
Location: The Netherlands

Re: What If?

Post by tBone »

Rob Dylan wrote:This has probably been asked at the time, but if Hamilton had decided to stick at McLaren, who would have taken the second Mercedes seat instead?

I remember Heidfeld was quite close to a seat, wasn't he? Or was this earlier, before Schumacher's comeback maybe..
YOUR
LOGO

Here
User avatar
Wallio
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 2626
Joined: 22 Feb 2012, 22:54
Location: The Wyoming Valley, PA

Re: What If?

Post by Wallio »

gnrpoison wrote:I wonder if they would have just increased the entrant size to 28, as I imagine given the Formula Elaborate Bluff earlier in the season nearly splitting the championship, be better to get a team that has a history of F1 on the grid then to allow the space just for the new entrants and the uncertainity of some of the teams actually showing up in Australia. Plus I imagine Ferrari may have lobbied on Sauber's behalf to ensure they survive as imagine would have been a backlash at allowing a team that could be competitive to lose its entry due to BMW leaving. Perhaps 26 grid is the limit and so DNQs come back if by some miracle USF1 actually appear and we have 28 cars entered. If that is the case no resurrection of the 107% qualifying rule because a full grid means slowest car is not in the race. A fight between USf1 and HRT to qualify which means in Canada, no Ferrari angry at being held up by a backmarker as HRT may not qualify in that race. Be good also to see some rare DNQs when drivers are eliminated due to mechancial problems and have not set a lap, could Malaysia see a big gun out of the race due to the weather. Toyota probably do reasonable enough to ensure Top 6 in Constructors with Trulli and Kobayashi. Trulli maybe has a longer career due to not having to go to Lotus. I imagine Williams still have Toyota engines, so does Nakajima have one of the seats leaving Barrichello to retire or Hulkenberg to not enter F1 in 2010? No Maldonado for 2011 a possibility? I reckon USf1 and or HRT probably don't make it to 2013 or even to end of 2011, Virgin and Lotus/Caterham maybe fold earlier as harder to get top 11 with 14 teams if Concorde Agreement isn't rewrote to allow more money. I imagine no ART F1 bid either as no space unless they are generous and allow a 15th team but probably unlikely.


They actually DID raise it 28, on the condition, that the 14th team was Sauber and Sauber only, and on the condition that Peter Sauber got the other 12 teams to agree. 10 did (Ferrari actually DID agree, for once) but it was Williams and Renault IIRC who shot it down. (8w has a thing on it but I'm too lazy to look it up). It became moot when Toyota folded though.

Had Toyota stayed I could see Bernie forcing Williams and especially Renault to cave, allowing Sauber in.
Professional Historian/Retired Drag Racer/Whiskey Enthusiast

"He makes the move on the outside, and knowing George as we do, he's probably on the radio right now telling the team how great he is." - James Hinchcliffe on George Russell
GerhardTalger
Posts: 178
Joined: 25 Apr 2014, 07:50

Re: What If?

Post by GerhardTalger »

Rob Dylan wrote:This has probably been asked at the time, but if Hamilton had decided to stick at McLaren, who would have taken the second Mercedes seat instead?


Either of the Force India drivers, the longer they would have waited, the more likely Nico would have been over Paul.

A Nico/Nico combination would have been somewhat nice.
User avatar
mario
Posts: 8091
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 17:13

Re: What If?

Post by mario »

tBone wrote:
Rob Dylan wrote:This has probably been asked at the time, but if Hamilton had decided to stick at McLaren, who would have taken the second Mercedes seat instead?

I remember Heidfeld was quite close to a seat, wasn't he? Or was this earlier, before Schumacher's comeback maybe..

It was back in 2009 that Heidfeld was under consideration for a seat - the team decided to give the seat to Schumacher instead, although Heidfeld was employed for a while as Mercedes's test driver instead. By the time that seat was up for grabs again, Heidfeld had already switched to the WEC. Speaking of Schumacher, one possible outcome is that he might have stayed on for another year - Mercedes had opened discussions with him earlier in the year about extending his contract.

Overall, though, I'm not that sure whom else Mercedes might have turned to - Hulkenberg is one possible option, but at the time that Mercedes signed Hamilton, Hulkenberg was lagging quite some way behind di Resta in the standings (31 points to 43 for di Resta) and seemed to be struggling a bit for performance, which might well have hurt his chances for the seat.
Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
User avatar
TheFlyingCaterham
Posts: 590
Joined: 15 Sep 2014, 11:12
Location: Canberra, Australia

Re: What If?

Post by TheFlyingCaterham »

I know this sort of sounds generic, but how would motor racing as a whole be different today if WWII didn't happen? I would imagine that the technologies in the cars would be slightly more advanced today. I reckon some of the notable events that happened in motor racing, such as Imola 1994 and the safety boycotts in the 60's and 70's would have happened a couple of years sooner, albiet in different situations. As a whole, I would think that the technologies in racing would be 5-10 years more advanced compared to today's cars.

I also wonder what affects it would have had on the circuits as well. Many of Britain's circuits, like Silverstone, Castle Combe, Snetterton, Bedford and others wouldn't exist today, as they were constructed on airfield built for WWII. Brooklands would probably turn out to be the main home of British motorsport, as it would have never stopped being used for racing, at least because of the war starting.
Resident Track Designer Addict

2016 F1Rejects Track Designing Competition Champion
2017 F1Rejects Track Designing Competition Runner-Up

More of a reader than a poster on these forums, so I won't post much compared to others.
GerhardTalger
Posts: 178
Joined: 25 Apr 2014, 07:50

Re: What If?

Post by GerhardTalger »

mario wrote:
tBone wrote:
Rob Dylan wrote:This has probably been asked at the time, but if Hamilton had decided to stick at McLaren, who would have taken the second Mercedes seat instead?

I remember Heidfeld was quite close to a seat, wasn't he? Or was this earlier, before Schumacher's comeback maybe..

It was back in 2009 that Heidfeld was under consideration for a seat - the team decided to give the seat to Schumacher instead, although Heidfeld was employed for a while as Mercedes's test driver instead. By the time that seat was up for grabs again, Heidfeld had already switched to the WEC. Speaking of Schumacher, one possible outcome is that he might have stayed on for another year - Mercedes had opened discussions with him earlier in the year about extending his contract.

Overall, though, I'm not that sure whom else Mercedes might have turned to - Hulkenberg is one possible option, but at the time that Mercedes signed Hamilton, Hulkenberg was lagging quite some way behind di Resta in the standings (31 points to 43 for di Resta) and seemed to be struggling a bit for performance, which might well have hurt his chances for the seat.


Hulkenberg was better in the later stages of the year, earlier on Di Resta had a clear advantage.
Whiteshore
Posts: 165
Joined: 17 Aug 2015, 00:03

Re: What If?

Post by Whiteshore »

What if Alfa Romeo's cars and engines were more reliable in 1984-1985? Could they have stayed in F1?
Unafraid of the papaya!
User avatar
Butterfox
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6192
Joined: 30 Nov 2009, 19:45
Location: Stupid, sexy Flanders.

Re: What If?

Post by Butterfox »

TheFlyingCaterham wrote:I know this sort of sounds generic, but how would motor racing as a whole be different today if WWII didn't happen? I would imagine that the technologies in the cars would be slightly more advanced today. I reckon some of the notable events that happened in motor racing, such as Imola 1994 and the safety boycotts in the 60's and 70's would have happened a couple of years sooner, albiet in different situations. As a whole, I would think that the technologies in racing would be 5-10 years more advanced compared to today's cars.

I also wonder what affects it would have had on the circuits as well. Many of Britain's circuits, like Silverstone, Castle Combe, Snetterton, Bedford and others wouldn't exist today, as they were constructed on airfield built for WWII. Brooklands would probably turn out to be the main home of British motorsport, as it would have never stopped being used for racing, at least because of the war starting.


Well, probably the German and Italian dominance would last a little longer and Alfa wouldn't have this much financial problems. Also France suffered no war damage, so many of their constructors remained active and more succesful than they did in reality. For the british teams, it would take around the same time to break trough, but relatively spoken it took them longer. With lots of manufacturers in the fifties, the death toll would be a lot higher, With accidents like the 1955 Le Mans disaster still happining, though in different places and times. In the sixties F1 reached a point of almost ceasing to exist as the many big manufacturers didn't want to be associated with the many deaths anymore, as the sport becomes more publicly known. Instead many British based garagistes step in. After that, F1 develops more or less the same as it did in reality. Only safety features develop 10 years ahead. Perhaps American involvement would a little big higher, but not significant enough.
As the Cold war might not have happened either, perhaps some soviet involvement happened, but not succesful.

Whiteshore wrote:What if Alfa Romeo's cars and engines were more reliable in 1984-1985? Could they have stayed in F1?

Biggest problem was fuel consumption, so it wouldn't make much of a difference.
I don't know what i want and i want it now!
User avatar
MorbidelliObese
Posts: 215
Joined: 13 May 2014, 19:34
Location: Leeds, UK

Re: What If?

Post by MorbidelliObese »

Whiteshore wrote:What if Alfa Romeo's cars and engines were more reliable in 1984-1985? Could they have stayed in F1?


I'm watching those seasons at the minute, and my own observation is that the problem with the Benetton-sponsored Alfas wasn't so much reliability, more that they were just slow. Well compared to where de Cesaris was able to pop up on occasion in 1982 and 1983 anyway.

Had they been a bit more competitive, I reckon their fate would still have been sealed by new owners Fiat in the same way the Ligier-Alfa was by 1987.. I heard that Arnoux's comments were more of a convenient excuse by the bean-counters to focus everything on Ferrari, rather than the insult being the sole factor?
Darling fascist bully boy, give me some more money you bastard. May the seed of your loin be fruitful in the belly of your woman.
User avatar
Butterfox
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6192
Joined: 30 Nov 2009, 19:45
Location: Stupid, sexy Flanders.

Re: What If?

Post by Butterfox »

MorbidelliObese wrote:
Whiteshore wrote:What if Alfa Romeo's cars and engines were more reliable in 1984-1985? Could they have stayed in F1?


I'm watching those seasons at the minute, and my own observation is that the problem with the Benetton-sponsored Alfas wasn't so much reliability, more that they were just slow. Well compared to where de Cesaris was able to pop up on occasion in 1982 and 1983 anyway.

Had they been a bit more competitive, I reckon their fate would still have been sealed by new owners Fiat in the same way the Ligier-Alfa was by 1987.. I heard that Arnoux's comments were more of a convenient excuse by the bean-counters to focus everything on Ferrari, rather than the insult being the sole factor?

The reason that Alfa became so slow, was that from 1984 on, refuelling was banned, and Alfa had to run slow to even make it to the finish. Inherently the cars were probably as fast as the 82-83 ones, but because of the fuel consumption, any potential the car had would not be used. Osella had similar problems with the Alfa engines, making them even slower than they already were.
Now had refuelling not been banned, Alfa would probably last until 1988, as back then Turbos got banned, and FIAT wouldn't bother to build an Alfa V12 to compete with their own.
I don't know what i want and i want it now!
User avatar
mario
Posts: 8091
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 17:13

Re: What If?

Post by mario »

TheFlyingCaterham wrote:I know this sort of sounds generic, but how would motor racing as a whole be different today if WWII didn't happen? I would imagine that the technologies in the cars would be slightly more advanced today. I reckon some of the notable events that happened in motor racing, such as Imola 1994 and the safety boycotts in the 60's and 70's would have happened a couple of years sooner, albiet in different situations. As a whole, I would think that the technologies in racing would be 5-10 years more advanced compared to today's cars.

I also wonder what affects it would have had on the circuits as well. Many of Britain's circuits, like Silverstone, Castle Combe, Snetterton, Bedford and others wouldn't exist today, as they were constructed on airfield built for WWII. Brooklands would probably turn out to be the main home of British motorsport, as it would have never stopped being used for racing, at least because of the war starting.

In many ways, it is a fairly difficult question to answer given that it would have had a fairly fundamental shift on the industrial capacity of many European states. At the very least, it could well have cut back on the UK's success in the earlier years of the sport, since one advantage that UK based manufacturers had was the abundance of experienced aeronautical engineers and production specialists looking for work in the manufacturing sector (figures like Chapman and Rudd come to mind).
Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
User avatar
Bobby Doorknobs
Posts: 4059
Joined: 30 Jul 2014, 17:52
Location: In a safe place.

Re: What If?

Post by Bobby Doorknobs »

TheFlyingCaterham wrote:I know this sort of sounds generic, but how would motor racing as a whole be different today if WWII didn't happen? I would imagine that the technologies in the cars would be slightly more advanced today. I reckon some of the notable events that happened in motor racing, such as Imola 1994 and the safety boycotts in the 60's and 70's would have happened a couple of years sooner, albiet in different situations. As a whole, I would think that the technologies in racing would be 5-10 years more advanced compared to today's cars.

I also wonder what affects it would have had on the circuits as well. Many of Britain's circuits, like Silverstone, Castle Combe, Snetterton, Bedford and others wouldn't exist today, as they were constructed on airfield built for WWII. Brooklands would probably turn out to be the main home of British motorsport, as it would have never stopped being used for racing, at least because of the war starting.

Can of worms. It's not necessarily generic, but ridiculously complicated to answer. The butterfly effect would make the world of today in general - never mind the world of motorsport - impossible to envision. There's also the matter of what events transpire that ensure war doesn't break out in Europe in 1939, i.e. do the Nazis never rise to power? Is Germany treated less harshly in the Treaty of Versailles? Does the Russian Revolution fail? Do the Central Powers win the First World War? Does the First World War never happen in the first place? Do aliens force humanity to unite? And then there's the question of whether an alternative outcome to such events affect the chances of such a devastating conflict from breaking out. But that's no fun, so let's just assume that the world is exactly the same up to September 1939, and no war breaks out at all :)

In the short term (because that's all that can probably be talked about with any degree of accuracy) the two German manufacturers continue to dominate European Grand Prix racing. The AIACR (previous guise of the FIA) had plans for a new Grand Prix World Championship, which I can only imagine was similar to what we really got in 1950 - some of the more prestigious European events plus the Indy 500 and possibly an event like the Tripoli Grand Prix to further legitimise its name, though maybe with a greater European presence in the States - I can see Mercedes at the very least being pushed to extend their influence to America's biggest motorsport event, helped by the fact that the AAA formula at the time was the same as the existing Grand Prix formula. Drivers like Hermann Lang and Giuseppe Farina might even have been winning multiple championships at their peak, something they never achieved in reality.

Then there's the question of regulations: Many of the automobile clubs around Europe were quite fed up with Mercedes and Auto Union winning virtually every race and I believe the AIACR had intended to replace the existing Grand Prix formula with the smaller Voiturette formula. However, when it was announced that the 1939 Tripoli Grand Prix would be run to Voiturette regulations Mercedes ordered the construction of a new Voiturette car and won the race with Hermann Lang, so who knows?

Manufacter invlolvement: Naturally, you have the same successful German and Italian manufacturers. Ferrari enter the fray under the "Auto Avio Costruzione" banner due to an agreement with Alfa Romeo. Then you have Delahaye in France, who were occasionally able to overcome the fascists with a good bit of luck (see the 1938 Pau Grand Prix). The economic climate of France during and after the war made it impossible for Delahaye to continue so one can see its continued existence in this universe. In Britain, ERA were the only significant presence in Grand Prix racing, and they were in financial trouble in 1939. For the 1940s I wouldn't expect Britain to have a significant impact on international motorsport.

As for circuits, yes, some of Britain's greatest circuits like Silverstone and Snetterton would more than likely never have come into existence, but we still get the continued existence of others such as Brooklands and the original Donington Park. In Germany the recently completed Deutschlandring near Dresden might finally have seen racing as it was scheduled to host the 1940 German Grand Prix to replace the Nurburgring. Racing would likely have continued in the North African colonies, but then comes the question of whether decolonisation happens in this universe and if it does, do the newly independent countries of Libya, Tunisia etc. continue to stage Grands Prix?

Technology is a tricky one. For much of its first decade F1's most advanced technology had already existed before the war. The Alfa Romeo 158s/159s were just voiturettes built in 1937, streamlined cars as seen in the Mercedes W196 and several other experiments by teams such as Lancia and Vanwall had been tried before the war (see the Maserati 4CL). Even Auto Union had been running mid-engined cars with some success. Perhaps racing technology would have become more advanced than in the real-life 1940s and 1950s, but I disagree that motor racing today would necessarily be more advanced in a no-WWII reality than in our own. Mechanical discoveries such as using aerofoils to produce downforce might have happened sooner, but really could have happened at any time, it was all allegedly down to a Swiss racing driver/engineer experimenting with a concept. The biggest advances in racing technology today are probably in electronics, and that's largely at the mercy of advances in computing. The war didn't halt technological progress, simply directed it elsewhere, so we wouldn't be seeing Senna winning in a McLaren equipped with ERS or teams protesting the traction control on Jim Clark's new Lotus 49.

Safety... Impossible to answer. We might have gotten extremely lucky and some accidents might not have happened. Some accidents might have happened a few years sooner but others could have happened later. Most safety developments only occurred as a result of a serious accident: Le Mans 1955, Spa 1966, Imola 1994 etc. The Le Mans disaster was only precipitated by Hawthorn making a split-second decision to pull into the pits. Senna might have lived if the piece of suspension didn't hit him where it did (what ifs for another day). In fact, it's often said Senna's accident was one that was waiting to happen. It could just as easily have happened to Piquet in 1987 or Schumacher in 1999 with a very similar if not identical outcome, just accelerated or delayed.
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
mario
Posts: 8091
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 17:13

Re: What If?

Post by mario »

Simtek wrote: Mechanical discoveries such as using aerofoils to produce downforce might have happened sooner, but really could have happened at any time, it was all allegedly down to a Swiss racing driver/engineer experimenting with a concept. The biggest advances in racing technology today are probably in electronics, and that's largely at the mercy of advances in computing. The war didn't halt technological progress, simply directed it elsewhere, so we wouldn't be seeing Senna winning in a McLaren equipped with ERS or teams protesting the traction control on Jim Clark's new Lotus 49.

The driver you are thinking of is Michael May, a consultant from Bosch and later a senior engineer at Ferrari - he constructed an aerofoil that was mounted on top of his Porsche 550 during the 1956 Nürburgring sportscar race, where he started to seriously embarrass the works Porsche team until they "persuaded" the organisers to disqualify May on technical grounds.

However, May pointed out that he was, in fact, copying a much earlier car - he remembered that Fritz von Opel (the father of Rikky von Opel, as it happens) had used aerofoils on the RAK2, an experimental rocket car that was constructed in 1928, to generate downforce and thereby stabilise the car. There was also the later Mercedes-Benz T80, intended to claim the world land speed record until WW2 intervened, which was also built with wings to provide downforce.

The T80 also nicely brings me onto the other aspect, which was your aside about traction control - Mercedes had actually fitted a mechanically operated traction control system on the T80. I know you meant the comment in jest, but the idea of cars being fitted with traction control systems in the 1960's is perhaps not quite so far fetched as you might imagine.
Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
User avatar
tommykl
Posts: 7062
Joined: 07 Apr 2010, 17:10
Location: Banbury, Oxfordshire, UK

Re: What If?

Post by tommykl »

mario wrote:
Simtek wrote: Mechanical discoveries such as using aerofoils to produce downforce might have happened sooner, but really could have happened at any time, it was all allegedly down to a Swiss racing driver/engineer experimenting with a concept. The biggest advances in racing technology today are probably in electronics, and that's largely at the mercy of advances in computing. The war didn't halt technological progress, simply directed it elsewhere, so we wouldn't be seeing Senna winning in a McLaren equipped with ERS or teams protesting the traction control on Jim Clark's new Lotus 49.

The driver you are thinking of is Michael May, a consultant from Bosch and later a senior engineer at Ferrari - he constructed an aerofoil that was mounted on top of his Porsche 550 during the 1956 Nürburgring sportscar race, where he started to seriously embarrass the works Porsche team until they "persuaded" the organisers to disqualify May on technical grounds.

However, May pointed out that he was, in fact, copying a much earlier car - he remembered that Fritz von Opel (the father of Rikky von Opel, as it happens) had used aerofoils on the RAK2, an experimental rocket car that was constructed in 1928, to generate downforce and thereby stabilise the car. There was also the later Mercedes-Benz T80, intended to claim the world land speed record until WW2 intervened, which was also built with wings to provide downforce.

Interesting you should bring that up, because I talked about May in my final-year dissertation. Essentially, not only did he have an aerofoil on his car, he effectively had a DRS, where the aerofoil would change its angle of attack depending on whether the car was cornering or in a straight line. Later, at Ferrari, despite being a powertrain engineer, he gave the aero team the idea to add wings to the car for the Belgian Grand Prix...only to find out that other teams had already had the same idea :P
kevinbotz wrote:Cantonese is a completely nonsensical f*cking alien language masquerading as some grossly bastardised form of Chinese

Gonzo wrote:Wasn't there some sort of communisim in the East part of Germany?
User avatar
Peteroli34
Posts: 1957
Joined: 25 May 2013, 10:01
Location: Thurrock, Which isn't London

Re: What If?

Post by Peteroli34 »

So i was reading this article

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/334915/sarrazin-prost-broke-my-heart-over-f1-seat/

What if Stephane Sarrazin replaced Luca Badoer for the rest of the 1999 season?
GerhardTalger
Posts: 178
Joined: 25 Apr 2014, 07:50

Re: What If?

Post by GerhardTalger »

I doubt he would actually have scored (given he had the same car gremlins as Luca had in Europe), although just maybe he would have been closer to Rubens. Maybe some decent performances would have landed him a 2000 seat, but I'm not sure. He could have beaten Verstappen to the Arrows seat, maybe, but that's about it.

More interesting if it would have given Luca a chance at Ferrari and if we would be talking about his almost-win at Germany.
Whiteshore
Posts: 165
Joined: 17 Aug 2015, 00:03

Re: What If?

Post by Whiteshore »

What if Didier Pironi didn't have his Hockenheim crash? Would he have become 1982 WDC and what would have happened to him in 1983 onwards?
Unafraid of the papaya!
User avatar
Bobby Doorknobs
Posts: 4059
Joined: 30 Jul 2014, 17:52
Location: In a safe place.

Re: What If?

Post by Bobby Doorknobs »

Whiteshore wrote:What if Didier Pironi didn't have his Hockenheim crash? Would he have become 1982 WDC and what would have happened to him in 1983 onwards?

1982 WDC: Yes
1983 onwards: <unicode shrug that Salamander uses>
#FreeGonzo
User avatar
tommykl
Posts: 7062
Joined: 07 Apr 2010, 17:10
Location: Banbury, Oxfordshire, UK

Re: What If?

Post by tommykl »

Simtek wrote:
Whiteshore wrote:What if Didier Pironi didn't have his Hockenheim crash? Would he have become 1982 WDC and what would have happened to him in 1983 onwards?

1982 WDC: Yes
1983 onwards: <unicode shrug that Salamander uses>

Indeed, barring any other unforeseen circumstances, Pironi would have won 1982 easily.

As for 1983, I think he might have won that one too, considering that Arnoux and Tambay both had really good seasons and also that, well, Ferrari won the constructors' title. I think Pironi would have carried the momentum over to 1983.

After that, I can't see him win another title. He'd probably challenge Prost in early 1985 like Alboreto did. Assuming he doesn't have his speedboat accident, he'd probably retire some time around 1988-90, scoring a few more wins here and there, probably moving back to Ligier towards the end of his career.
kevinbotz wrote:Cantonese is a completely nonsensical f*cking alien language masquerading as some grossly bastardised form of Chinese

Gonzo wrote:Wasn't there some sort of communisim in the East part of Germany?
yannicksamlad
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 644
Joined: 19 May 2014, 11:16

Re: What If?

Post by yannicksamlad »

I agree, 1982 he'd have been champ. But I was a bit puzzled by Pironi. At first he looked really good, but his first year at Ferrari really wasn't impressive at all. I was sort of surprised they kept him. Now maybe he just didn't like the car or the switch to Michelins, or both. But he was much better in 1982 and you could see again why Renault liked him.
But never seemed likely to beat Piquet, Prost, Senna over a season.if they had competitive machinery...in my view
I started supporting Emmo in 1976 (3 points )....missed 75, 74, 73, 72...
Whiteshore
Posts: 165
Joined: 17 Aug 2015, 00:03

Re: What If?

Post by Whiteshore »

What if the Prost-Peugeot wasn't so unreliable in 2000? Could they have been in the lower midfield?
Unafraid of the papaya!
User avatar
Ataxia
Not Important
Posts: 6860
Joined: 23 Jun 2010, 12:47
Location: Sneed's Feed & Seed (formerly Chuck's)
Contact:

Re: What If?

Post by Ataxia »

Whiteshore wrote:What if the Prost-Peugeot wasn't so unreliable in 2000? Could they have been in the lower midfield?


Nope. Someone posted a load of Prost setup sheets from Imola on Reddit a few months back, and having read them all it was clear from the driver feedback that the car had very little mechanical grip. Peugeot had suggested, according to an issue of F1 Racing in 2000, that their engine was kicking out around 792bhp, which was the sort of upper-middle level of power; I believe the Supertec might've been producing around that sort of output, if not a little lower. If that's true, then clearly the car couldn't put that power down at all.

Jean Alesi was a driver who famously liked a pointy front-end, he wanted the car to turn in predictably and he would work wonders with just that characteristic. The setup sheets pretty much confirmed th at the Prost was not going to comply in that area, and so unreliability would have ultimately been inconsequential.
Mitch Hedberg wrote:I want to be a race car passenger: just a guy who bugs the driver. Say man, can I turn on the radio? You should slow down. Why do we gotta keep going in circles? Man, you really like Tide...
Post Reply