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.

Schumacher's Ferrari Controversies, by Ibrar Malik

In 1996 Michael Schumacher moved to Ferrari and by 1997 key former Benetton personnel like Ross Brawn, Rory Byrne (the B194 designer) and Tad Czapski (the engine electronics guru) joined him. Ferrari then went from being an occasional race winner to serial championship contenders over a sustained period. Questions have since been asked, why did Schumacher and his former Benetton colleagues stick together? Was it because they had sidestepped the rules in 1994 and did it subsequently at Ferrari? Dark rumours began to circulate that they somehow knew how to create an undetectable traction control implying they also may have achieved this in 1994.

When Schumacher initially arrived at Ferrari in 1996 he did work with its existing technical team. His sublime performances within a poor F310 car suggested the German's skill didn't solely rely on his former Benetton colleagues. This is confirmed by his then Ferrari teammate Eddie Irvine, "We were really in the shit in 1996. I remember when the car came out I said, 'That looks worryingly different from everyone else's car.' It turned out everyone else was right and we were wrong."

Schumacher won three races in this car which impressed teammate Eddie Irvine who later admitted, "That was the year that Michael really earned his money." 

Did a Return to Simpler Cars in 1994 Contribute to the Accidents?, by Ibrar Malik

"The cars are immediately less stable without the electronic suspension. As a consequence, they are harder to drive and we'll have more cars spinning and going off the track" 

Ayrton Senna, Williams Driver (Killed during San Marino GP)

“Several commentators said it was the elimination of driver aids (to blame for the accidents), a classic post hoc point. It was an intensely stupid inference but was nevertheless widely reported.” 

Max Mosley, FIA President

Following the tragedies of the 1994 San Marino GP, a mass-media hysteria gathered and called for immediate repercussions but couldn't agree on what they should be. Some suggestions were constructive, some destructive, most were frankly a veiled attempt to turn tragedy into titillation. Generally, the fewer journalists knew about F1, the greater the mock outrage was. FIA President Max Mosley was initially at pains to avoid a knee-jerk response…that was until Karl Wendlinger suffered an almost fatal crash at Monaco less than two weeks later. Mosley then came under intense pressure from outside motorsport to impose urgent safety measures, but teams were in an uproar over the haste of such action. They argued Mosley's measures would not be safer until the knock-on effects were established, this led to more problems which are detailed in the book.

Mosley felt it was a statistical cluster that so many accidents happened at Imola 1994. But choose his words carefully afterwards to avoid being branded as irresponsible by a media baying for blood.

New Motorsport Week article: When a painted cow saved F1 - the South African Grand Prix that wasn’t

Pereira, Fernando / Anefo / neg. stroken, 1945-1989, 2.24.01.
05, item number 930-9907 [CC BY-SA 3.0 nl (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/
3.0/nl/deed.en)], via Wikimedia Commons

Whatever you think about Formula 1 politics at any given moment in time, you can at least count yourself lucky that they are not the politics of the 'FISA-FOCA war'. And as everyone headed off for the winter at the end of the 1980 season the war was at its most entrenched. Then even sober assessments had F1 - had least F1 as we knew it - as not long for this earth.

As the months passed and 1980 gave way to '81 about the only progress was of even more digging in. That was until a painted cow - no, really - broke the logjam. And gave us eventually the F1 that we would still fully recognise today.

In my latest for Motorsport Week I tell this rather strange tale. You can check it out here: https://www.motorsportweek.com/news/id/21539

The Most Successful and Worst Car of 1994, What Do They Have in Common?, by Ibrar Malik

Answer - they shared the same ancestor. The Pacific PR01 car failed to finish a race in 1994 whereas the Benetton B194 won eight Grands Prix, yet amazingly the two cars originated from the same 1991 design. It's just the Pacific was a less refined version of the Benetton.

In 1991 a high-quality design team headed by Rory Byrne and Pat Symonds secretly worked on a Reynard F1 car. However, the project was eventually shelved and the team moved back to Benetton for 1992. "I was a director of the Reynard F1 effort so knew a lot about it," explains Willem Toet, Benetton's Head of Aerodynamics in 1994 and one of the key contributors towards the upcoming book. "Pat Symonds, Rory Byrne and Adrian Reynard were the other directors. Afterwards we all went back to Benetton because Rory did a deal for the whole group. I don't think there is a person on the planet who knows the story better than I do." Their 1991 Reynard design morphed into the race winning 1992 Benetton and the B194 car, which Michael Schumacher used to win the 1994 drivers' championship, was an advanced evolution of it.

Some extremely rare photos of the 1991 Reynard F1 project conducting wind tunnel testing with Willem Toet. 

Bernie Ecclestone and the Great Tobacco Debacle - a guest article by Gemma Gale

What did former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair fear would finish his career? Taking the UK into the Iraq War? The claims he made in the case for said war? Or a bit of a scuffle over tobacco sponsorship in F1? If you are familiar with the name 'Bernie Ecclestone', you'll already have ticked number three - and you'd be right. Here's how the strange tale of the mogul, the Prime Minister, and the tobacco unfolded…

Bernie Ecclestone

Photo: Octane Photography

Bernie Ecclestone is (and has for some time been) a British businessman who holds the position of chief of F1. Crucially, he effectively controls all commercial rights to the sport, putting him in an immensely powerful position when it comes to sponsorship and so forth. Back in 1997, before the General Election that would put Blair's Labour Party in power by a landslide, Ecclestone secretly donated £1million to the Labour party. At the time, Ecclestone was heavily involved with tobacco companies, agreeing with them lucrative sponsorship deals, out of which both he and the sport were making a considerable amount of money.

Final thoughts on 2015: Car wars

Perhaps it says something about ripple effects. That it can take a time for reverberations to make themselves felt. But there was an irony around in the 2015 F1 season.

Rewind 12 months previously to the start of the 2014 campaign, F1 was about to undertake its biggest leap in technical regulations ever particularly in its move to a hybrid-type 'efficiency' engine formula and there was no shortage of those fearing the worst. Lots of it wasn't realised then, indeed some of the fears were silly, but some of it was prescient. It just rather oddly took a year to reveal itself.

Debilitating costs; dominance of a small number of manufacturers; soporific fare.

For more reason than one, the year in F1 was all
about Mercedes and Ferrari
Photo: Octane Photography

We got all of those this time. In more ways that one F1 in 2015 became absolutely about Mercedes and Ferrari. Only they offer competitive engines - and indeed come next year it looks like as many as 16 of the 22 cars will be so powered - therefore they have huge say in the sport's effective competitive order. It manifested itself precisely too - 'Mercedes - gap - Ferrari - gap - the rest' was a common sight on Saturdays and Sundays this season just finished, the two works teams won every race and the rest didn't really get within shouting distant of the podium's top step. The pair also have huge say, it is said, over its customers politically in terms of their votes on the sport's regulations and the like. Red Bull, even the powerful entity that is Red Bull, showed this year what happens if you get on the wrong side of them. It wasn't pretty.

Therefore in F1 2015 not even the usual last resort in the face of predictable results of pointing to meritocracy had the same effect as normal.

1 - Film Review: Not just another F1 film

Yet another F1 film release? Right in the wheel tracks of the blockbuster successes of Senna and Rush, a documentary and a theatrical film respectively? Just like them based on the sport's past? What on earth can it offer over and above these? Well, in the case of 1, rather a lot as it turns out.

Even above and beyond the challenges outlined in the opening paragraph, the film-makers of 1 - a new film about the history of F1 - hardly could have asked for a more daunting set of objectives. Max Mosley told the film's director Paul Crowder at the project's outset that if he could 'capture why he's devoted 40 years of his life to F1 then he'll have succeeded'. In essence, the makers felt that their mission was to capture the essence of this the pinnacle of motor sport. Its glamour, its pace, its danger, and everything else besides. No mean feat.

Despite what it says on the tin though 1 isn't really a history of F1. Not exactly anyway. But nevertheless it can be said to have gone a long way to meeting its haughty mission statement.

Martin Brundle starts
 and ends the story
Credit: greenmashup / CC

The film starts not in the beginning, but on the starting grid of the 1996 Australian Grand Prix. Perhaps not the most obvious choice, but its reasoning soon becomes clear. The animated buzz of the assembled crowd, the rich colours resultant of the full-beam Melbourne sunshine, as well as the mass of team members and assorted hangers on crawling over the assembled cars - all in eager anticipation of the race, and season, start - are familiar. As is the gradual, aching build up of tension, eventually to be released as the cars are unleashed like feral beasts when the red light goes out.

But then...not long after we had a spectacular accident: Martin Brundle got his braking wrong and cartwheeled over several cars, his machine disintegrating as it did so. The car, by now a heap of wreckage, came to rest upside down in a gravel bed, and the seconds of time wherein there is no movement from the cockpit seem to stretch on like hours. All of the harrowing accidents, some fatal, that took place within the previous 24 months suddenly seem scarily redolent. Yet, before you know it Brundle emerges, in his own words 'without a bruise on his body' and then can be seen - accompanied by the roar of the crowd - hot-footing it down the pit lane to find Sid Watkins in order to get the OK to take the restart.

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.

Looking back: 1981 - F1's strangest season

The recently ended 2010 season is commonly accepted as a great one. When thinking of great F1 seasons some readily spring to mind, such as the dramatic championship finishes of 1964, 1986 and 2008, or the competitiveness of 1974, 1997 and 2003, or even the drama and controversy of 1976 and 1989. The season of 1982 however tends to rise above others in such debates. It after all can boast no fewer than 11 different winners (for seven different constructors) in 16 races, no individual winning more than two of them. This all was alongside multiple acts of drama on and off the track, conducted in an atmosphere of extreme acrimony. Such is the myth that surrounds 1982 that it even had a specialist book about it written and published a quarter of a century later, by the sadly recently-departed Christopher Hilton.

However I feel that the season which preceded 1982, 1981, is somewhat forgotten about, and has a strong claim as a memorable and dramatic season. It can certainly match 1982 for controversy and acidity. Indeed, much of the 1982 politics were simply a continuation of those in 1981! The 1981 championship battle was tighter and went to the wire to a much greater extent than 1982's did. Plus the on track racing action (easy to forget in all of this) was generally much more diverting in 1981. It seems to have been lost in time somewhat that most of the races in 1982, i.e. the hour and a half on a Sunday, were soporific spectacles. And 1981 isn't far off 1982 in terms of variation of winners, no driver won more more than three races, the world champion totalled but 50 points, and in the final drivers' table no fewer than five drivers were within seven points of the top of the table. Eat your heart out 2010.

Even if one maintains that 1981 was not among the sport's greatest seasons, it certainly has a claim to being one the sport's strangest. It started with a race that never was in South Africa, attended by only 19 cars, the races were participated in by a field of cars, for the most part, in flagrant breach of the rule makers' flagship regulations, and it ended in a car park in Las Vegas, wherein the three contenders stumbled disastrously over the line, and Nelson Piquet claimed his first World Championship by a point, almost in spite of himself.

Final thoughts on 2010: F1 mostly looking rosy

Hopefully the 2010 F1 season will be viewed in years to come as a watershed rather than a blip. It was a season wherein F1 was strangely at ease with itself, and delivered a level of on track action not seen in years, and a championship battle of a competitiveness probably not seen ever.

Given F1's capacity for false dawns and for shooting itself in the foot, I feel slightly reluctant be so positive about F1's state, but at the topline level 2010 was a great season for F1.

On the track it was the year of the Bull, with the Red Bulls continuing their almost uninterrupted upward trajectory over their six year stint in the sport, by claiming the drivers' (for Vettel) and constructors' championship titles. Indeed, their competitive advantage, particularly in aerodynamics, was compared by some to some of the Ferraris in the Schumacher/Todt/Brawn era, and to the Williams FW14s. The car's pace advantage, particularly through the quick corners, appeared to indicate a fundamentally different approach from their rivals.

That they didn't finally claim their championship crowns until the very end of the season was down to a number of well-documented factors, including unreliability (for Vettel), driver errors and having two competitive drivers taking points off each other. But it also reflected the resurgent Ferrari and McLaren teams' ability to pounce on any slight opportunity that Red Bull presented them with.