Pedro Lamy's 1994 Silverstone Testing Accident, by Ibrar Malik and Ben Green

This is a special blog to celebrate the launch of the audiobook: Team Lotus, Struggling Beyond The Post Colin Chapman Era.

This blog has been co-written by Ben Green, who is the proud owner of the Lotus Formula 1 car Pedro Lamy crashed during that Silverstone test in May 1994, just prior to that year's Spanish Grand Prix. If you have read the book: 1994 The Untold Story of a Tragic and Controversial F1 Season, you'll know Lamy's crash and its subsequent fallout, was hugely significant to F1 that year. Ben's Lotus chassis is the 107C (chassis no 1).

This is the (restored) Lotus 107C that Lamy almost was killed in during that fateful day at Silverstone in May 1994. Ben purchased the chassis from Team Lotus during 1995, along with a heap of spares.
     
1994 Lotus 107C
At the end of the 1993 season, Team Lotus's finances were in a bad way. The newly released book: Team Lotus, Struggling Beyond The Post Colin Chapman Era details how and why Team Lotus got there by the early 1990s.

Its Chris Murphy-designed 107B was fast but unreliable, while its complex active suspension and customer Cosworth HB engines had drained resources. Along came Honda with the Mugen brand and an updated 1989 ZA5 V10 engine, a no-cost factory option.

Paul Tracy's Benetton Test, September 1994 - by Ibrar Malik

Many believe Schumacher ran illegal driver aids during 1994 because one of Benetton's former drivers, Jos Verstappen, once claimed so during an interview in 2011. This along with all the other arguments are analysed extensively in the book however, what is not commonly appreciated is five other drivers stepped inside the B194 that year also. Michael Schumacher, JJ Lehto, Johnny Herbert and Allan McNish all drove the 1994 Benetton and their views on it will become clear either in the book or in upcoming blogs. However it is often forgotten that rising IndyCar star, Paul Tracy, also tested the car. So what were his thoughts?

Paul Tracy in the Penske. Although the cars looked similar, IndyCar drivers have not always adapted to F1. Most notably Michael Andretti in 1993.

Bernie Ecclestone organised the Paul Tracy/Benetton test because IndyCar racing was growing in popularity at the time and becoming a serious rival for F1. Nigel Mansell, Mario Andretti and Emerson Fittipaldi all raced in the US series and even Ayrton Senna investigated a move Stateside at the end of 1992. It is believed that Ecclestone wanted to steal IndyCar stars (like Paul Tracy) to weaken the American series but also to widen grand prix racing's appeal. F1's commercial supremo had been instrumental in moving the 1991 and 1995 IndyCar champions (Michael Andretti and Jacques Villeneuve) across the pond during the mid-1990s.

The Flying Dutchman After 1994, by Ibrar Malik

Jos Verstappen, the father of current F1 star Max, arrived in the sport with a BANG. On his debut, the 1994 Brazilian Grand Prix, he arguably caused one of the most horrific looking multi-car pileups ever. This had followed massive hype surrounding the 22-year-old that he was F1's next big thing.

Verstappen failed to deliver on his initial promise, instead he crashed out of 50% of races during 1994. It earned him the nickname "Vercrashen". 

Some believed the pressure of debuting for one of F1's top teams - Benetton - alongside the 1994 world champion got to him. Whereas others, including Jos himself, felt Benetton secretly gave Schumacher a car laden with hidden electronic aids which explained the Dutchman's lack of performance. The new book investigates this in detail however, what can be learned from Jos's career outside of Benetton?

Lehto at Benetton, by Ibrar Malik

1994 was supposed to be the year JJ Lehto became one of F1's top drivers, but the season ended his Grand Prix career. How did such a golden opportunity turn into a poisoned chalice?

Coming into that year Lehto was considered a rising star having tested for Ferrari and secured an incredible third at Imola 1991 driving for unfancied Scuderia Italia. 

After beating former race winner Michele Alboreto to the second Benetton seat for 1994, Lehto would have been forgiven for thinking regular podium visits were just around the corner. This was the Finn's first top F1 drive after five years within F1 and the new Benetton proved extremely quick in Michael Schumacher's hands. But that was as good as things got for JJ because on the 21st January 1994 he was lucky to survive a massive neck-breaking accident while testing the B194 at Silverstone. This month, therefore, marks the 25th anniversary of that. Few realised Lehto's girlfriend had just become pregnant only days before that accident. So you can imagine thoughts of not wanting his unborn child to grow up without him might have been circulating within Lehto's head as he laid in the hospital recovering.

Johnny Herbert at Benetton, by Ibrar Malik

The upcoming book details what can be learnt about the 1994 Benetton controversies whenever other drivers sat within the car, like Johnny Herbert. So what was the Grand Prix winner's view of driving it?

Johnny had been tipped for F1 stardom before sustaining serious leg injuries in a horrific multi-car pileup during an F3000 race in the summer of 1988. Despite not having fully recovered, the Englishman bravely returned to racing at the beginning of 1989 with the Benetton Formula 1 team and astonished onlookers by finishing a brilliant fourth on his debut.

Herbert arriving for his first Formula One test in 1989. Whenever he was buckled up within the car, painkilling injections were stabbed into his legs. Herbert's injuries still affect him today.

Determined as he was, Johnny's performances progressively got worse throughout 1989 as his leg injuries hindered him on circuits which required heavier braking. This led to a political battle over Herbert's future, between Peter Collins (Benetton's team manager) and Flavio Briatore (Benetton's newly appointed Commercial Director). Collins, having spent three years supporting Johnny through the junior categories was adamant the Englishman should remain, but Briatore insisted on replacing him with a fellow Italian. After failing to qualify for the Canadian Grand Prix Herbert was promptly replaced by Emanuele Pirro (an Italian) and Collins left the team a few weeks later.

The Day Schumacher Drove a Ligier, by Ibrar Malik

The upcoming book details what is learnt about the Benetton controversies when Michael Schumacher tested a Ligier for one day in December 1994. For instance was the German as impressive when not driving a Benetton?

Before we answer this let us remember the background surrounding this test. In early 1994 the Ligier team was in financial trouble following its team owner, Cyril de Rouvre, having been jailed on fraud charges. Benetton directors, Flavio Briatore and Tom Walkinshaw, bought the struggling French outfit in May 1994 following months of conveyancing. Within this transaction, they were partly acting for the Benetton family - their paymasters - who wanted Ligier's prized supply of Renault engines having failed to acquire them via more conventional means during 1993. This was because their rivals, Williams, had stopped Benetton advances towards the French engine supplier by giving Ligier assistance with gearboxes etc throughout 1993. Williams' strategy was to keep Ligier competitive enough to maintain Renault's interest in it rather than Benetton. Following the 1994 acquisition, Walkinshaw owned a minor stake in Ligier but dreamt of owning the whole team and bringing it Grand Prix success with Ross Brawn. While Briatore, another stakeholder, was simply happy to be a sleeping partner and saw the Liger purchase as just another of his investments.

Walkinshaw (left) and Briatore of Benetton. Neither were strangers to controversies, therefore many people consider Benetton guilty of the 1994 accusations simply because of their association.

Inside Line F1 Podcast - Mick Schumacher To Join Red Bull Junior Program?

Helmut Marko has denied being in talks with Mick Schumacher to join the Red Bull Junior Driver program. Could this actually be a hint that Red Bull are already in talks with the young Schumacher? There's going to be a race to sign him - who will win this one?

In this week’s episode of the Inside Line F1 Podcast, we have Ashley give us a brief summary of the Singapore Grand Prix and her experiences from the Marina Bay Circuit. Also, we discuss the ‘mini race’ in Miami, how Ferrari may have beaten Red Bull and Mercedes to the ‘junior driver’ game, if Formula E is already using the ‘concept 3’ Formula 1 car and if a certain Flavio could be the ambassador for Formula 1’s newly announced betting partnership. Tune in!

Here's what is in store for you this week:

2:00-5:00 - HAM seeking a new challenger in his title battle, LEC could be one?

5:00-8:00 - RBR has seats, but no drivers. Mercedes have drivers, but no seats. Can RBR give KUB’s Formula 1 dreams wings?

8:00-10:00 - Ferrari ahead of the ‘junior driver’ game. We tell you WHY RBR could be talking to Mick Schumacher…

10:00-13:00 - Todt vs. Brawn when it comes to new teams joining Formula 1? And of course, a ‘universal engine’ for Motorsport? Btw, Todt said ’23 Grands Prix’ calendar, yay or nay?

13:00-15:00 - Just how many manufacturers has ALO pissed off? IndyCar vs. Formula 1 at COTA in 2019

15:00-17:00 - Formula E using Formula 1’s Concept-3 already?

17:00-20:00 - Let’s make VAN have some fun; c’mon. Hats off to SIR - fantastic defences in Singapore!

20:00-23:00 - Are RBR and VER talking down Renault way too much? Did you know that VJM is RT’ing Force India’s tweets? Miami to host a ‘mini race’; what does that even mean? Turkey to make a comeback?

25:00-28:00 - What Wolff Said This Week section

28:00-end - Flavio to be the ambassador for Formula 1 Betting?

(Season 2018, Episode 32)

Subscribe to the Inside Line F1 Podcast on iTunes and on audioBoom (RSS feed) for your weekly dose of Formula 1 humour

Inside Line F1 Podcast - Fernando Alonso Can't Be F1's Ambassador

Formula 1 hopes that Fernando Alonso will be the sport's ambassador despite choosing to race elsewhere in 2019. Well, we're certain Alonso (also Briatore?) wouldn't mind the 'ambassadorship' if it comes with some money and maybe a guarantee of a faster car in the future? Either way, why Formula 1 would ask Alonso to be their ambassador baffles us. The double World Champion has only had negative things to say about the sport for the last many years.

In this week's episode of the Inside Line F1 Podcast, we wonder how many drivers would McLaren and Red Bull Racing have approached to fill their cockpits for 2019; any guesses? We actually did some math on the show. A manufacturer-customer relationship (a la Ferrari-Haas) might actually be good for the sport - it should reduce the performance gaps we see currently. And finally, how soon before Formula 1 tries the heads-up display visor that Super Formula tested a days ago? Tune in!

(Season 2018, Episode 28)

Subscribe to the Inside Line F1 Podcast on iTunes and on audioBoom (RSS feed) for your weekly dose of Formula 1 humour

Inside Line F1 Podcast - Ferrari Should Sign Max Verstappen

In this week's episode of the Inside Line F1 Podcast, Mithila and Kunal tell you why Ferrari should sign up Max Verstappen at the expense of letting go the yet-to-find-form Kimi Raikkonen.

We explain why there's no 'crisis in Formula 1' and wonder what Haas Racing's real pace is. As we THANK GOD that Flavio Briatore isn't Bernie Ecclestone's successor, we wonder if Formula 1 needs a Narendra Modi too?

The dubious qualifying format, Pirelli tyres, Ferrari vs. Mercedes - so much to look forward to in Bahrain, including Toro Rosso scoring their first points ever? And obviously, there's no incentive to race to the podium in Bahrain for Kimi Raikkonen (we tell you why!).

And finally, did Kunal crack his best F1 joke ever in this episode? Tune in and find out.

(Season 2016, Episode 09)

Knowing what's expected of you

In the Chinese Grand Prix last weekend something stood out for me. Something rather blink-and-you-miss-it; that didn't seem to raise much comment.

Early in the race you may recall Sebastian Vettel and Fernando Alonso circulating in tandem - Vettel second; Alonso third. Alonso pitted for the first time, seeking the undercut on Seb, and rejoined the action a little way behind the Toro Rosso of Daniil Kvyat, not yet pitted. But on fresher rubber Alonso bore down on his opponent quickly then passed the STR9 on the back straight. And when Seb pitted himself at the end of the lap he not only emerged behind Alonso but also was himself now behind Kvyat.

Daniil Kvyat - knowing his place
Photo: Octane Photography

Advantage Alonso as Seb is stuck in traffic? Well, no. In the blink of an eye, before the first turn was even half done indeed, Kvyat - who clearly has learned quickly - had smartly nipped out of the Red Bull's way and let Seb by.

It wasn't the biggest surprise of course, in that the first thing a lot of F1 followers would attribute to Toro Rosso in a word association test is that it is Red Bull's 'B' team, owned as it is by the same fizzy drinks entity.

It's also not the first time we've seen this sort of thing; China last Sunday was merely the latest. The footage of then-Toro Rosso pilot Jaime Alguersuari having strips torn off him by Red Bull bigwig Helmut Marko in Korea in 2011 due to the heinous offence of having held up Seb in a practice session (yes, a practice session) lingers unpleasantly in the memory. While since it seems the Toro Rosso pilots know exactly what is excepted of them. Even though the instances necessarily don't arise that often, when a Red Bull gets behind a Toro Rosso, even if it's in a race for position, the Toro Rosso can be expected in a response akin to Pavlov's dog to swerve out of its pursuer's path pronto. As Martin Brundle has been given to comment (presumably in reference to Alguersuari): 'the last Toro Rosso driver to get in the way of a Red Bull no longer is a Toro Rosso driver'.

Why I'll welcome Pat Symonds back to F1

If you have ever been to the annual Autosport Show in Birmingham you'll be aware that a frequent feature is that various F1 luminaries do question and answer sessions for the gathered fans in attendance. It was while at one such event at this year's show that I overheard the following exchange between two fans in front of me about the luminary in question: 'Who is he?' asked one. 'He's the guy who told his driver to crash' replied the other.

It therefore may not be a surprise to you that the identity of the luminary being discussed was Pat Symonds. Reading this month's Motor Sport magazine brought this conversation back, as it features an extensive interview with Symonds. And here, for the first time I can recall, he talks about that crash at Singapore as well as outlines his intention to return to F1 in 2013, adding that he has had offers from 'several' teams. The 'silly season' for who goes where for next year is therefore not only about drivers.

For the uninitiated (where have you been?) Symonds was one of the most experienced, skilled and respected engineering heads in the F1 pitlane. He joined the Toleman team in its early throes in 1981 and, aside from a brief spell in 1991, stayed there through its phoenix-like rise to the top of the sport, via the Benetton and Renault incarnations, taking in seven world championships and working with the likes of Ayrton Senna, Michael Schumacher and Fernando Alonso along the way.

Whisper it, there's been an over-reaction to 'Crashgate'

Last week, 'Crashgate' had what hopefully was its last hurrah, with Nelson Piquet Jr and his father being awarded 'substantial damages' from Renault, who had accused the Piquets of lying over the affair.

'Crashgate' of course is what the media and others commonly refer to as the incident in the Singapore Grand Prix of 2008, wherein then-Renault driver Piquet, in a pre-arrangement his team, deliberately crashed his car to initiate a safety car period, to the end of helping team mate Alonso leapfrog several cars on the way to victory.  Whisper it, I can't help but think that there's been something of an over-reaction to the whole case.

The language of the apocalypse has been in plentiful supply in the 'Crashgate' reaction, making front pages as well as back. Simon Barnes in The Times declared it as 'the worst act of cheating in the history of sport', and most others weren't much milder in their assessment. And time doesn't seem to have been much of a healer, as the case's recent re-emergence in the media has shown, with ESPN F1 editor Martin Williamson calling it 'one of F1's most sordid affairs' and 'nobody...has come out of this with any credit'.

But was it as bad as is commonly accepted? Calling it the worst act of cheating in any sport ever is surely excessive (what, worse than East German mass doping of children in the 1970s? I'm sure the list of worse acts than Renault's in Crashgate is almost endless). Calling it a 'race fix', as many have, is also inappropriate as a race fix would surely have involved other teams, and pre-arrangement of the whole final race result. I instead see it as little more than a crude attempt to take advantage of an imperfect rule that existed in F1 at the time (i.e. the closure of the pit lane at the start of a safety car period, giving massive advantage to those who had already pitted). F1's equivalent of the professional foul in football, to use a rough analogy.