"Reject of the Year" for years that were not covered.

[1993DonningtonNo1]

Well, suppose I could have put Aguri Suzuki, the 'Spinner of the Year' as quoted by James Hunt himself during the Donnington race.

[DOSBoot]

Here's my take for 1988-1993.

1988:
3. Williams
2. Bernd Schneider
1. Ligier

1989:
3. Nelson Piquet
2. Zakspeed
1. Rene Arnoux

1990:
3. Phillipe Alliot
2. Yannik Dalmas
1. Life

1991:
3. Mauricio Gugelmin
2. Ligier
1. Michele Albereto

1992:
3. Ivan Cappelli
2. Thierry Boutsen
1. Andera Moda

1993:
3. Tyrrell
2. Ukyo Katayama
1. Michele Albereto

[1993DonningtonNo1]

1990
3) Anything to do with the Brabham name - Need I say more?
2) Onyx/Monteverdi - How does a team go full circle in terms of competitiveness in less than 2 years?
1) Ambitious Engine Builders - Yes I mean you, Life and Subaru.

[rachel1990]

rejects of the year 1992-1999 (just drivers)

1992
1st - Ivan Capelli -for being one of the worst Ferrari drivers in history and getting 3 points compared to Jean Alesi's 18
2nd - Martin Brundle - For costing Benetton second in the constructors championship
3rd - Giovanna Amati- More in the sport because of her gender than her driving ability

1993
1st- Michael Andretti - poor driving in every race and preventing Mika from having the seat until Ron saw sense
2nd- Thierry Boutsen- why was he still bothering by this point? Costing Eddie Jordon a fortune and didn't get a single point.
3rd - Riccardo Patrese- Another of the drivers who was past their best and let Schumacher do all the hard work.

1994 (so many to chose from)
1st- JJ Lehto- In the car that Michael Schumacher won the title in he gave the team 1 point. In six races. Schumacher won 8 races in 12 races. I don't understand why the team hired him
2nd - Bertrand Gachot- Money , Money ,Money. And was a waste of that. 2 races qualified. 2 DNFs.
3rd- Michele Alboreto- Some people just can't get the message when they know their career is over. Here is a case in point. 1 point. 0 chances beyond that

1995 (much tougher this year)
1st -Roberto Moreno- Wasn't fair to give it to Mansell so gave it to Mr Rent-a-team instead. Why do you insist on joining a team that you know is going nowhere
2nd - Nigel Mansell - Another driver who seemed to want to drag out his career. 2 races and a whole lot of money and time wasted. Well done Mclaren
3rd (very tough choice)-Giovanni Lavaggi- When Palmer points out that your really slow that really says it all.

1996
1st- David Coulthard - Thrashed by his team-mate and couldn't seem to cope with the car this year.
2nd- Eddie Irvine - Thrashed by his team-mate but I will give him some leeway because that Ferrari was horrific (the car by itself would win reject of the year)
3rd - Damon Hill - While he won the title he did seem to act like a 5 year old about it

1997
1st - Ralf Schumacher - Notes taken at the end of the season- stay on track. Do not hit team-mate or older brother who is fighting for the title
2nd- Shinji Nakano - Prove to Prost that you're worth it don't just give up. Oh wait. you did.
3rd - Heinz-Harald Frentzen- several demerit points include going to wrong pitbox and disappearing from races.

1998
1st - Johnny Herbert- Smiley could get past a single point this year and never came close to getting another point
2nd- Olivier Panis- The only reason that he wasn't reject of the year was because he broke both his legs the previous year. But he was dreadful in 1998
3rd- Jarno Trulli - Was meant to be the new bright light in f1. If that was the case he needs to change the bulb

1999
1st- Alessandro Zanardi- Sorry Alex, but in 1999 you had an awful year and showed that F1 wasn't for you
2nd - Damon Hill- Like father like son. Damon stayed too long and looked like he couldn't be bothered. Almost cost Jordan 3rd.
3rd Toranosuke Takagi- Pay driver who couldn't seem to stay on the road.

So these are my choices for 1992-1999 rejects

[Londoner]

Hmmm, some controversial choices there, Rachel. I certainly wouldn't have Brundle second on the ROTY podium for 1992, seeing as he scored in every single race he finished that year. I'd probably have Olivier Grouillard instead, for being Olivier Groulliard.

It's harsh to give ROTY to Lehto in 1994, considering he had a big crash in testing where he injured his neck. No doubt that (and the fact that the B194 was so obviously tailored to Schumacher's driving style) had a big effect on his perfomance. I think you've got Gachot and Paul Belmondo mixed up.

Definitely disagree with Hill being 3rd in 1996. 1996 is actually quite tough to choose for drivers, as no-one apart from Johnny Carwash was really dreadful that year.

I'd say Ricardo Rosset was a lock for ROTY in 1998. The only driver to DNQ that year, which he did no less than FIVE times that year. That hilarious sequence of events in Monaco qualifying, so amaturish. And for ploughing into the Belgian GP pile-up at a million miles an hour, caught easily on camera.

I also wouldn't choose the Prost drivers for ROTY, as the 1998 Prost was absolute shite beyond belief. Not even Schumacher or Hakkinen would have managed to drag it to good results. Perhaps Villeneuve and Magnussen could be on the podium instead.

1999, I'd have Alexander Wurz on the podium. But, it's Wurz, so it's best he isn't on it.

[FloProAct]

Agree that Brundle shouldn't be there in '92: Isn't it generally accepted that he wasn't that far off Schumacher, if he was worse at all, and should have at least got a win?

Not sure about Moreno being there in '95: he wasn't particularly bad with respect to the car he was driving. As for why he was driving for Forti: he wanted to drive in F1. Can we really begrudge him that?

[pi314159]

Maybe for 1995 Pacific, since according to Andrea Montermini, they did sort of Start-and-Parking, which is very uncommon in Formula 1

So what they planned to do was to do whole race weekends on engines with no miles on them. So basically every time we went to a circuit, for example on a Friday they were telling me, "OK, today you have three laps to do. Tomorrow you have two laps to do. And in the race you have 20 laps to do. And then you have to retire." You had to retire because there was no mileage on the engine!

But when they were telling me my laps for that day were two laps, it was not two flying laps, but it was one out lap, then in again! Kilometre-wise, one lap was the time that you went out of the pits and came back in again.

But Moreno? He wanted to drive in F1, so he signed for Forti. Reminds me of de la Rosa last year.

[mario]

Agree that Brundle shouldn't be there in '92: Isn't it generally accepted that he wasn't that far off Schumacher, if he was worse at all, and should have at least got a win?

Not sure about Moreno being there in '95: he wasn't particularly bad with respect to the car he was driving. As for why he was driving for Forti: he wanted to drive in F1. Can we really begrudge him that?

It's true that Brundle was in contention for a win in some races - for example, he was in 2nd place and catching Berger at a fair rate in the Canadian GP that season before the transmission failed, so it wasn't as if his performance was completely hopeless. Overall, most observers felt that, whilst he may have been beaten by Schumacher, he was still a relatively competitive driver and probably deserved to have retained his place at Benetton.

[Phoenix]

My view:

1992
1.- Ivan Capelli: granted the Ferrari F92A was very mediocre, but the way he was thrashed by Alesi, made silly mistakes during races and seemed to quickly get disspirited about the whole situation are intolerable.
2.- Ukyo Katayama: not brilliant at all. Lacked speed and seemed amateurish at times.
3.- Thierry Boutsen: Érik Comas, a sophomore, beat him fair and square. Remember only two years ago he was winning the Hungarian GP for Williams.

1993
1.- Michele Alboreto: Alboreto had been plonking around since mid-1989, but this year takes the cake after an impressive 1992 season. Not only he had to cope with the prehistoric Lola T93/30, he also got his backside comprehensively showed by Luca Badoer, a rookie.
2.- Thierry Boutsen: another veteran doing no business at all since some time being humilliated by a debutant. While Rubens Barrichello performed miracles in the Jordan 193, he was annonymous.
3.- Michael Andretti: the 1991 CART champion's struggles were truly mistifying. Probably the gizmo-ridden 1993 F1 wasn't really his thing, and McLaren didn't treat him too fairly, but he still made life miserable for himself with his lack of commitment. He's better off in the States.

1994
1.- Paul Belmondo: the only reason he was in F1 that year was money. And it showed despite the obvious limitations of the Pacific PR01: he was always off Bertrand Gachot's pace and only qualified at Monaco because of circunstance. Gachot managed to qualify for Brazil on merit alone.
2.- Olivier Beretta: another pay-driver who was well behind his more experienced team-mate. Érik Comas managed to score two points for the cash-strapped Larrousse team. Beretta scored none.
3.- Eddie Irvine: what gets the Ulsterman a place here is undoubtedly his penchant for creating trouble. He showed a good turn of speed but his clashes with Martin Brundle at Brazil and Johnny Herbert at Italy, costing Lotus a potentially great result that could have made a difference for the beleaguered team, are unforgivable.

1995
1.- Taki Inoue: the Japanese driver was, frankly, a waste. He was ridiculously slow driving for Footwork and made many mistakes during the weekends.
2.- Karl Wendlinger: you can have all the goodwill you want with the Austrian, but that won't change the fact after his horrific Monaco shunt last year he'd lost it. He was always way off the pace of Heinz-Harald Frentzen and showed fitness issues during the races.
3.- Ukyo Katayama: his back cancer took away all his form. To compound matters, the Tyrrell 023 was a bad machine.

1996
1.- Giovanni Lavaggi: absolutely cringeworthy. The only thing he did right was "engineering" Jacques Villeneuve's excellent pass on the outside of Michael Schumacher at Portugal.
2.- Ricardo Rosset: frankly, a lot more was expected from Rosset. He was 1995's F3000 runner-up, but Jos Verstappen made him look silly at Footwork and he even got as low as being outqualified by Luca Badoer, who was driving a Forti, at Canada.
3.- Johnny Herbert: he frankly didn't do much for Sauber this year. His only points finish was that 3rd place at Monaco, and even then Heinz-Harald Frentzen was faster than him and was in contention for the race win.

1997
1.- Jan Magnussen: what was going on with the Dane? A man who was so damnably brilliant in British F3 and who had a very solid debut at the 1995 Pacific GP subbing in for Mika Häkkinen at McLaren should have been doing eye-catching things. Which he failed to. Abismally.
2.- Shinji Nakano: the Prost JS45 was a very handy machine. On Olivier Panis' hands, at least. In Nakano's, it was a mere also-ran. The reason why he was driving for Prost was Mugen-Honda, who supplied the team with their engines. He was decidedly unwanted at the team and it's not difficult to see why.
3.- Gianni Morbidelli: brought in at Ferrari's request, he injured himself twice during the season but when he wasn't, he did nothing at all.

[Ataxia]

I'd stick Fontana in for 1997 instead of Morbidelli, because although the latter wasn't particularly good, at least he didn't pit multiple times for an issue that wasn't really there.

And for 1994, I think (unless this is purely based on drivers) "Events and Safety" have to be ROTY. Otherwise they look ok, Phoenix. I'd definitely agree with Alboreto for 1993, and in my opinion he wasn't a brilliant driver. He had one good season in '85, got his ass handed to him by Johansson in '86, Berger in '87 and '88, and fell by the wayside after that. Never a top racer.

[Phoenix]

I didn't put Fontana there (or people like Délétraz, for that matter) because I wanted to put drivers who had competed in a minimum number of races

And Michele Alboreto was really a top driver, but somehow he never got over losing the 1985 World Championship and Ferrari producing cars that were not contenders.

[takagi_for_the_win]

My efforts for 96, 97 and 98

1996
1. Giovanni Lavaggi Did nothing good when he was in the car, apart from helping Villeneuve with THAT pass.
2. Ferrari's reliability So awful that leading figures in the F1 paddock, Bernie Ecclestone included, actually betted on what lap the cars in red would grind to a halt.
3. Ricardo Rosset Admittedly he didn't get much time in the car, but he was slaughtered by Verstappen before the Dutchman lost heart.

1997
1. Jan Magnussen The new Senna, Jackie Stewart called him. However, there is a big differences between the two, the first that Senna could score points, and the second that Senna never got trounced by his teammate.
2. Shinji Nakano While his teammate Panis was picking up good results, and was labelled by some as a dark horse for the championship, and stand-in Jarno Trulli was unlucky not to pick up a podium, the best Nakano could do was 2 6th places, one of which was extremely fortunate.
3. Ralf Schumacher Where to begin? A season full of spins, crashes and mistakes, he ended the season with a very battered reputation. In fact, he was outqualified by Fisico at every race in the second half of the season. All in all, not a good year.

1998
1. Ricardo Rosset Oh dear. 3 DNQ's say it all. Whilst the Tyrrell wasn't up to much, teammate Takagi managed to outqualify more illustrious cars. Even when he did start, he managed nothing of note.
2. Prost Grand Prix One of the surprises of 1997, big things were expected of the French team, with works Peugeot engines replacing the Mugens, and highly rated Jarno Trulli coming in to partner the impressive Olivier Panis. However, a poorly designed chassis ruined the teams hopes, and they only picked up 1 point.
3. Stewart Ford Another team looking to build on a promising 97, Stewart found their second season more difficult than expected. After bagging a podium in only their 6th grand prix, the team found points harder to come by, and could only scrape together 5 points.

[Ataxia]

I didn't put Fontana there (or people like Délétraz, for that matter) because I wanted to put drivers who had competed in a minimum number of races

Oh, yes, I forgot about that! D'oh...

[ibsey]

I like to try & bring a slightly different perspective on these things, here’s my alternative take;

1995;
3rd Williams drivers & Williams Strategy calls. Seriously guys were you trying to lose that years championship? In which case you did an excellent job of it.

2nd 1995 German GP. Man that race was boring. Barely anything happened the whole race expect for some comical engine failures towards the end (& Bergers charge through the field, IIRC wasn’t even shown on the telly).

1st Ferrari reliability; Costing Jean some Epic race wins like at Monza (Jean’s last drive in a V 12, no. 27 Ferrari in Italy). Or at Suzuka which was simply a ridiculously good drive by Jean. (admittedly I am a bit of an Alesi fan, so my judgement may be clouded slightly here).

1996;

3rd The circuit organisers at the Argentine GP. As the bumps on the track that year were awful (especially on the Friday & Saturday IIRC). I think the main bump along the middle of the back straight even broke a Ferrari chassis & chipped JV’s tooth.

2nd Whoever thought putting tyres on the inside of the chicanes at Monza would be a good idea. I know the reason they did it was because the kerbs were smoother than previous years, so to stop drivers from cutting the chicanes too much. But in the wake of Imola 1994 where an object is believed to have hit Senna’s head. Was that really the best solution to the problem?

1st TWR organisation for leaving the Ligier team for Arrows, just before they won at Monaco. I remember thinking in the immediate aftermath of TWR’s switch, that Ligier seemed to be better off without them. Whereas Arrows fortunates seemed to take a downturn once TWR joined them in the 2nd half of 1996. This trend also appear to continue into 1997 also. If nothing else, TWR IMO ruined the iconic Footwork/Arrows paint scheme which had been going for a few yers. With their own rushed blue & red, ‘lets copy Beatrice Lola’s scheme from 1986’ at Nurburgring 1996 onwards.

Heres a couple random ROTY’s (haven’t really got the time to do 2nd & 3rd places at the moment. Sorry).

1985, 1st Place; The Tifosi at Monza who was sitting on top of the old banking bridge just before the Ascari Chicane & kept on flipping Alain Prost the bird every time he came around in the race. That die hard Ferrari fan, achieved very little, since Prost when on to win that particular race. Yet he risked not only his own life but perhaps the lives of the other drivers in doing so.

1997 1st Place; The bloke in charge of when ITV took their ad breaks. For instance they missed several key moments throughout the year like Damon Hill passing M Schumi at Hungary 1997 or when both Mclarens blew up at Nurburgring.

[Faustus]

Reject of the Year for 1985 would have to be the Royal Automobile Club of Belgium, for cocking up the re-surfacing of Spa and forcing the postponement of the race from June to September.

[ibsey]

Reject of the Year for 1985 would have to be the Royal Automobile Club of Belgium, for cocking up the re-surfacing of Spa and forcing the postponement of the race from June to September.

Yeah that's probably a better choice than my one, in all honesty. I only just mentioned that Ferrari fan, because I thought it was funny. Off the top of my head, struggling to think who might take 3rd spot? Might it be either Renault, for doing sod all that year? Whereas one of their engine customers, Lotus Renault managed 2 wins (IIRC) & numerous pole position. All with the same engine. Or might it be Ferrari reliability, for potentially costing them the WDC? Other (better) suggestions, are more than welcome.

[Faustus]

Reject of the Year for 1985 would have to be the Royal Automobile Club of Belgium, for cocking up the re-surfacing of Spa and forcing the postponement of the race from June to September.

Yeah that's probably a better choice than my one, in all honesty. I only just mentioned that Ferrari fan, because I thought it was funny. Off the top of my head, struggling to think who might take 3rd spot? Might it be either Renault, for doing sod all that year? Whereas one of their engine customers, Lotus Renault managed 2 wins (IIRC) & numerous pole position. All with the same engine. Or might it be Ferrari reliability, for potentially costing them the WDC? Other (better) suggestions, are more than welcome.

I'd say Renault and / or Alfa Romeo and the Alfa Romeo drivers, for achieving bathplug all during the season. In Renault's case, the works team scored less points than 2 out 3 of their customers and less than 25% of the points scored by one of their customer teams (Renault 16 points, Lotus 71; Ligier 23 and once Tyrrell started using Renault engines, Renault only scored 1 point more than Tyrrell). The crap results combined with the industrial action in France meant the team had to close down.
Alfa Romeo scored 0 points.

[rachel1990]

As well as drivers as I have done above I will do teams now for 1992-1999

1992
1st- Brabham. Bad way to end the team.
2nd- Andrea Moda-Judd- Never got going and ended just as quickly
3rd- Ferrari (very tough decision) When you reach rock bottom the only way is up.

1993
1st Tyrrell-Yamaha- 0 points, endless retirements.
2nd Jordan-Hart- 5 drivers in one car? that equals 1 point. Rubens got the other 2.
3rd Mclaren (another very tough decision) For making a meal out of the season and for keeping Andretti too long (and making sure he couldn't become a REJECT!)

1994 (too many teams to pick)
1st- Pacific-Ilmor-Paul Belmondo went to every race. Qualified twice. In total the team went to all 16 races. Qualified at least one car 5 times. After Canada 0. Says it all.
2nd Lotus- Just ran out of money and luck. Not a great chassis either.
3rd Benetton- Couldn't give it to Simtek. Basically the team 'allegedly' cheated.

1995
1st- McLaren-Mercedes- 2 podiums. Just 2. Oh and the Mansell debacle.
2nd Pacific-Ford. They can now qualify. Just can't finish the races. Had 9 double retirements
3rd Forti-Ford. Same issue as above. I'm surprised you could see the cars the amount of mess Pacific and Forti must have caused

1996
1st Benetton- How the mighty have fallen. 0 wins. They had 11 in 1995
2nd Ferrari. God help them if Schumacher hadn't been in the car.
3rd Forti-Ford. At least they finally gave up the ghost.

1997
1st Arrows. Apart from Hungary (where it was the tyres rather than the car) dreadful.
2nd Lola-Ford- I dread to think how many people were put off buying a MasterCard after this debacle.
3rd Stewert. 8 times they finished a race. 1 points finish (since it was a second place they can come third instead of first)

1998
1st Prost-Peugeot. Failed crash test, bad engine, driver mistakes... 1 point.
2nd Williams- I kind of feel sorry for them having that shite engine. But only 3 podiums. Bad
3rd Stewart. Okay in your first season a load of retirements are expected. But surely you could have sorted them out in your second?

1999
1st BAR- 'we can win the first race' HA. No humility, no hope, no reliability, no points.
2nd Benetton- Bad car bad year. 1 lucky podium and the car was in limbo
3rd Arrows - stuck in limbo at this point.

[Salamander]

1992
1st- Brabham. Bad way to end the team.
2nd- Andrea Moda-Judd- Never got going and ended just as quickly
3rd- Ferrari (very tough decision) When you reach rock bottom the only way is up.

What. Last time I checked, Brabham didn't send one of their drivers into Eau Rouge with dodgy steering that they knew was dodgy, and also didn't get chucked out for bringing the sport into disrepute.

[rachel1990]

1992
1st- Brabham. Bad way to end the team.
2nd- Andrea Moda-Judd- Never got going and ended just as quickly
3rd- Ferrari (very tough decision) When you reach rock bottom the only way is up.

What. Last time I checked, Brabham didn't send one of their drivers into Eau Rouge with dodgy steering that they knew was dodgy, and also didn't get chucked out for bringing the sport into disrepute.

I meant the whole can't qualify and having a bad car design

[Salamander]

1992
1st- Brabham. Bad way to end the team.
2nd- Andrea Moda-Judd- Never got going and ended just as quickly
3rd- Ferrari (very tough decision) When you reach rock bottom the only way is up.

What. Last time I checked, Brabham didn't send one of their drivers into Eau Rouge with dodgy steering that they knew was dodgy, and also didn't get chucked out for bringing the sport into disrepute.

I meant the whole can't qualify and having a bad car design

They still didn't do anything near as bad as sending Perry McCarthy into Eau Rouge with a bent steering arm.

[rachel1990]

What. Last time I checked, Brabham didn't send one of their drivers into Eau Rouge with dodgy steering that they knew was dodgy, and also didn't get chucked out for bringing the sport into disrepute.

I meant the whole can't qualify and having a bad car design

They still didn't do anything near as bad as sending Perry McCarthy into Eau Rouge with a bent steering arm.

I felt that since Andrea Moda didn't complete the season (or start on time) they couldn't get the win

[Salamander]

I meant the whole can't qualify and having a bad car design

They still didn't do anything near as bad as sending Perry McCarthy into Eau Rouge with a bent steering arm.

I felt that since Andrea Moda didn't complete the season (or start on time) they couldn't get the win

Neither did Brabham! Hell, Andrea Moda lasted a weekend longer than they did, only to have the most rejectful weekend by an F1 team of all time!

[rachel1990]

Neither did Brabham! Hell, Andrea Moda lasted a weekend longer than they did, only to have the most rejectful weekend by an F1 team of all time!

But Brabham had been around for 20 odd years while Andrea Moda didn't. Brabham's last year made people forget all of their history and see a team fall far from grace.

However Andrea Moda showed that planning and a proper financial platform are needed. I think they summed up small pay teams in the early 90s.

If it was a points system there would be a point in-between.

[Phoenix]

But Benetton did get a podium in 1999 - Giancarlo Fisichella finished 2nd at Canada.

[rachel1990]

But Benetton did get a podium in 1999 - Giancarlo Fisichella finished 2nd at Canada.

Thank you for pointing that out. Forgot about canada (well the winners anyway). it has now been modified

[Salamander]

But Brabham had been around for 20 odd years while Andrea Moda didn't. Brabham's last year made people forget all of their history and see a team fall far from grace.

However Andrea Moda showed that planning and a proper financial platform are needed. I think they summed up small pay teams in the early 90s.

If it was a points system there would be a point in-between.

Andrea Moda also showed that it's helpful to have your team run by someone who isn't an utter fool. At least Brabham's 1992 wasn't filled with reject moments galore.

[dr-baker]

But Brabham had been around for 20 odd years while Andrea Moda didn't. Brabham's last year made people forget all of their history and see a team fall far from grace.

However Andrea Moda showed that planning and a proper financial platform are needed. I think they summed up small pay teams in the early 90s.

If it was a points system there would be a point in-between.

Andrea Moda also showed that it's helpful to have your team run by someone who isn't an utter fool. At least Brabham's 1992 wasn't filled with reject moments galore.

Ahh, yes, the last time a woman has been employed as an F1 driver...

[ibsey]

How about giving Williams Renault a honorary mention for ROTY in 1992?

CRAZY! I hear you cry well here's my reasoning....

Firstly for the way they handled their driver negotiations during the whole of 1992, like signing Prost so early in the year with that veto clause against Senna. I know it is likely there was pressure from Renualt to hire Prost. However Williams probably would have been better off at the very least waiting until later in the season when they had Mansell & Senna amongst others desperate to get a Williams seat for 1993. Then they might have agreed even better terms with Prost, had Renualt insisted on him for 1993. Alternative if Renault weren't insisting on Prost, then Williams would have had alot more options like Mansell & Senna (apparaently willing to drive for free).

Then there was the letting Patrese sign for Benetton before it had become totally clear he wasn't needed for 1993. According to James Hunt BBC commentary at the 1992 Belgian GP, James mentions something along the lines of how both Williams & Patrese soon regretted that decision after Senna & Mansell looked unlikely to be getting the 1993 Williams seat. Then the whole Mansell negotiations saga. How when they had Mansell & Senna willing to drive for free...do they end up with employing their rookie test driver is way beyond me.

Secondly for turning up with such a dominate car in 1992, that for very early on, there was no question about who was going to win that years WDC. Therefore it was Williams fault that most of the races in 1992 there was no contest at the front at least. (Joking of course on that point)

[rachel1990]

How about giving Williams Renault a honorary mention for ROTY in 1992?

CRAZY! I hear you cry well here's my reasoning....

Firstly for the way they handled their driver negotiations during the whole of 1992, like signing Prost so early in the year with that veto clause against Senna. I know it is likely there was pressure from Renualt to hire Prost. However Williams probably would have been better off at the very least waiting until later in the season when they had Mansell & Senna amongst others desperate to get a Williams seat for 1993. Then they might have agreed even better terms with Prost, had Renualt insisted on him for 1993. Alternative if Renault weren't insisting on Prost, then Williams would have had alot more options like Mansell & Senna (apparaently willing to drive for free).

Then there was the letting Patrese sign for Benetton before it had become totally clear he wasn't needed for 1993. According to James Hunt BBC commentary at the 1992 Belgian GP, James mentions something along the lines of how both Williams & Patrese soon regretted that decision after Senna & Mansell looked unlikely to be getting the 1993 Williams seat. Then the whole Mansell negotiations saga. How when they had Mansell & Senna willing to drive for free...do they end up with employing their rookie test driver is way beyond me.

Secondly for turning up with such a dominate car in 1992, that for very early on, there was no question about who was going to win that years WDC. Therefore it was Williams fault that most of the races in 1992 there was no contest at the front at least. (Joking of course on that point)

I was considering williams but in the end Ferrari just tipped the scales for 3rd. However Williams does come fourth. Mclaren were fifth

[James1978]

I do actually recall reading an interview with Patrese, I think it was around the time of Button-gate in 2004/5. He did state that Williams did actually ask him to stay on to partner Prost in 93, after the Senna veto clause and Mansell went off to Indy Cars, but even though he wanted to he said he couldn't becuase he had to remain true to his signature with Benetton!!

[Klon]

Alternative if Renault weren't insisting on Prost, then Williams would have had alot more options like Mansell & Senna (apparaently willing to drive for free).

Yeah, aside from that little fact that Prost is a better driver than either Senna or Mansell and one of the three drivers that in my opinion have a legitimate claim to be the greatest of all time, they sure were stupid going for him. If I had been Williams and had their budget I would have rather paid Prost too than take Senna for free, especially since I can imagine that Renault - if they wanted him - agreed to pay at least part of his wage.
The relationship between Mansell and Williams was a rather difficult one at the end if I understood things completely and rightly, Mansell didn't just go to IndyCars because he was looking for a new challenge.

You are right about Patrese though, they might have been a bit too hasty to let him go. However on the chance of getting a dream driver line-up, which Prost-Senna/Mansell would have undoubtably been, not-quite world championship calibre drivers tend to get axed. He got Nicolas'd.

[rachel1990]

You are right about Patrese though, they might have been a bit too hasty to let him go. However on the chance of getting a dream driver line-up, which Prost-Senna/Mansell would have undoubtably been, not-quite world championship calibre drivers tend to get axed. He got Nicolas'd.

Really? Knowing that they couldn't be beaten in 1993 it would have been the perfect opportunity to bring in someone new like Hill and let him mature with the team.

3 races wins in 1993 compared to Patrese's 1 in 1992 in a better car tells me that Williams made the right decision

[Ataxia]

You are right about Patrese though, they might have been a bit too hasty to let him go. However on the chance of getting a dream driver line-up, which Prost-Senna/Mansell would have undoubtably been, not-quite world championship calibre drivers tend to get axed. He got Nicolas'd.

Really? Knowing that they couldn't be beaten in 1993 it would have been the perfect opportunity to bring in someone new like Hill and let him mature with the team.

3 races wins in 1993 compared to Patrese's 1 in 1992 in a better car tells me that Williams made the right decision

As did Patrese; he was getting paid more than Schumacher in 1993 which isn't so bad for your last year. McLaren considered Patrese in 1994, and when in contract negotiations he wanted the same as he was getting paid at Benetton. Ron Dennis had heard about Schumacher's alleged fee and thus used this to try and prise him away. Of course, it came to nothing...

Fun fact, there.

[rachel1990]

As did Patrese; he was getting paid more than Schumacher in 1993 which isn't so bad for your last year. McLaren considered Patrese in 1994, and when in contract negotiations he wanted the same as he was getting paid at Benetton. Ron Dennis had heard about Schumacher's alleged fee and thus used this to try and prise him away. Of course, it came to nothing...

Fun fact, there.

Maybe in 1993 they wanted to develop the car so they could have a crack at the title in 1994. Schumacher wasn't well known for Development while Patrese was.
As for Dennis trying to get Schumacher I think Michael could see that at the time Benetton was a better bet than Mclaren (aka engines)

[ibsey]

Alternative if Renault weren't insisting on Prost, then Williams would have had alot more options like Mansell & Senna (apparaently willing to drive for free).

Yeah, aside from that little fact that Prost is a better driver than either Senna or Mansell and one of the three drivers that in my opinion have a legitimate claim to be the greatest of all time, they sure were stupid going for him. If I had been Williams and had their budget I would have rather paid Prost too than take Senna for free, especially since I can imagine that Renault - if they wanted him - agreed to pay at least part of his wage.
The relationship between Mansell and Williams was a rather difficult one at the end if I understood things completely and rightly, Mansell didn't just go to IndyCars because he was looking for a new challenge.

Klon, I think you may have misunderstood the point I was trying to get at. I don't think Williams signing Prost was a silly decision. On the contrary actually, since I actually agree with the view that Prost was a better overall driver than either Senna or Mansell. Therefore I think that was a good decision.

My point in the post above was Williams would have been better off to hold off signing Prost (along with his veto clause) until later in the 1992 season. Needless to say, after Senna claimed he was willing to drive for free & it had become clear Mansell also wanting to carry on at the team, then Williams would have been in a much stronger negotiations position with Prost about 1993. Not to mention if for some reason Williams didn't want Prost (i.e. too expensive or simply didn't want the hassle of changing things around...remember Prost seem to take a while adjusting to his new Williams in early 1993, what with the number of times he stalled the engine in races etc) then they would have been left with more options than they had in reality. In effect Williams seemed to snookered themselves on these particular driver negotations.

I'd admit I don't know the fully story behind why Williams signed Prost so early. All I know after reading Mansell's book, is that Prost was trying to get Mansell's 1992 drive but failed then secured his 1993 drive soon afterwards. However on the face of things, you have to say it would have been more beneficial for Williams to have waited until around Spa / Monza 1992 to have signed Prost. That was my point.

[ibsey]

You are right about Patrese though, they might have been a bit too hasty to let him go. However on the chance of getting a dream driver line-up, which Prost-Senna/Mansell would have undoubtably been, not-quite world championship calibre drivers tend to get axed. He got Nicolas'd.

Really? Knowing that they couldn't be beaten in 1993 it would have been the perfect opportunity to bring in someone new like Hill and let him mature with the team.

3 races wins in 1993 compared to Patrese's 1 in 1992 in a better car tells me that Williams made the right decision

I think it is fair to say that Williams made a error in letting their own driver sign for a rival team in Benetton for 1993, only then to later ask him to stay on to partner Prost in 93. Again that was my original point, not whether or not Patrese would have better than Hill in 1993.

BTW the 3 wins to 1 win comparison thing seems a bit flawed to me, unless you also look behind just the mere statistics at the actual performances of the drivers you are trying to compare. For instance the 3 wins that Hill did achieve in 1993 were all as a result of Prost, whom was ahead of Hill at the time, encountering problems. Yes Hill himself had led some races but encounter his own problems, but then so did Patrese in 1992, like at Monza (or even France where he had to give way to Mansell). Having said that & without checking the race performances of said drivers in 1992 & 1993, my gut feeling does tell me that Hill would have been a better bet than Patrese for 1993 (IMO). So in the end Williams were very fortunate on how things did pan out in this respect.

[ibsey]

You are right about Patrese though, they might have been a bit too hasty to let him go. However on the chance of getting a dream driver line-up, which Prost-Senna/Mansell would have undoubtably been, not-quite world championship calibre drivers tend to get axed. He got Nicolas'd.

Really? Knowing that they couldn't be beaten in 1993 it would have been the perfect opportunity to bring in someone new like Hill and let him mature with the team.

3 races wins in 1993 compared to Patrese's 1 in 1992 in a better car tells me that Williams made the right decision

As did Patrese; he was getting paid more than Schumacher in 1993 which isn't so bad for your last year. McLaren considered Patrese in 1994, and when in contract negotiations he wanted the same as he was getting paid at Benetton. Ron Dennis had heard about Schumacher's alleged fee and thus used this to try and prise him away. Of course, it came to nothing...

Fun fact, there.

According to EJ's book, Mclaren pay 1 million US Dollars for a copy of Ricardo Patrese's 1993 Benetton contract. Basically, Ron Dennis knew that Schumacher had a certain clause in his Benetton contract (which ran until 1995). This clause stipulated "no teammate to Schumacher is allowed to be paid more than he was". Therefore Ron knew that Patrese WAS being paid more than Schumacher in 1993. That is why he offered Patrese 1 million US Dollars for a copy of his 1993 Benetton contract. Upon recieving Patrese's contract, Ron then approached Schumacher, to highlight to him this breach that Benetton had made against him, in the hope that Schumacher would be angry with Benetton & accept a offer to join Mclaren.

Instead Schumacher, approached Flavio Briatore about this breach & Flavio apologised & pleaded for Schumacher to stay at Benetton, paying him more money as a result.

[Jonny83]

1952:

1 - BRM - their no-shows effectively cancelled "F1" as the main event.
2 - ERA G-Type
3 - Ferrari's Indy 500 attempt

[Alextrax52]

Finally i've found this subject and can do my nominations for these years

1990
3 Lotus (They were still reasonably competitive in 88 and 89 but no one expected their collapse in 1990)
2 Ligier (No points again)
1 Life Racing Engines (You know you're in trouble when your driver fears he's going to be hit)

1991
3 Mauricio Gugelmin (Failed to score a point)
2 Theirry Boutsen (Was this really the same man who won for Williams?)
1 Ferrari (Prost's comment on the car being a truck just said it all)

1992
3 Ivan Capelli (Qualifing behind a Fondmetal rather summed up his season)
2 Jordan Yamaha (Heroes to Zeroes in the space of a year)
1 Andrea Moda (Do I really need to say anything?)

1993
3 Michele Alboreto (Outpaced by Badoer all season)
2 Lola (Regulary at the back of the grid before folding)
1 Tyrrell (It speaks volumes when they finished below Lola in the constructors championship)

1994
3 Lotus (If 90 and 91 were bad then 94 made both of them look good)
2 Driver Safety (For everything that happened)
1 Pacific (Only 7 starts out of 34 and only 1 start not shrouded in circumstance)

1995
3 Karl Wendlinger (Not the same man from 1993)
2 Pay Drivers (Yes Lavaggi and Deletraz that means you)
1 Forti (A lawnmower could have gone faster than them)

1996
3 Sauber Ford (It's worth noting that 10 of their 11 points came in the wet)
2 Giovani Lavaggi (Only man not driving a Forti to fail to qualify)
1 Forti (A year of total farce. Shannon and all)

1997
3 Stewart (Apart from that podium in Monaco their reliability put Alfa Romeo to shame)
2 Ukyo Katayama (What a difference 3 years makes)
1 Lola-Ford (Go Home Eric Broadley)

1998
3 Williams (What a massive fall from grace)
2 Prost (From giant killers in 1997 to also-rans in 1998. That takes some doing)
1 Ricardo Rosset (Not only was he the only man to fail to qualify he did so 5 times)

1999
3 Alex Zanardi (Only bright spot was Italy but nothing more)
2 Damon Hill (Thrased 54-7 in points 2-0 in wins 6-0 in podiums and 3rd-12th in the drivers title by Frentzen)
1 B"wewillwin"A"ourfirstrace"R (One of the biggest debut season embarrassments ever)