Matters of moment, May 1995

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Current page

85

Current page

86

Current page

87

Current page

88

Current page

89

Current page

90

Current page

91

Current page

92

Current page

93

Current page

94

Current page

95

Current page

96

Current page

97

Current page

98

Current page

99

Current page

100

Current page

101

Current page

102

Current page

103

Current page

104

Current page

105

Current page

106

Current page

107

Current page

108

You know the rules…

It was scarcely credible, truth be told. All winter, we’d heard promises of a bright new beginning for Formula One. The latest generation 3.0-litre cars would be more racer-friendly, we were assured. The performance differentials between the established front-runners and the rest would be reduced. There would be more excitement, more variety and, we hoped, naïvely as it transpired, less controversy.

The events in Brazil have been well documented, and are scrutinised elsewhere in the issue. Suffice to say that Benetton and Williams were still ahead of the rest, the only significant overtaking took place in the pits and the crowd went home thinking one driver had won the race only to awake the next morning and discover the result had been changed…

So what’s new?

The ramifications of the FIA’s remarkable decision to reinstate Schumacher and Coulthard in the results but penalise their teams will be interesting. Ferrari, which finally showed real signs of competitiveness in Argentina, has reacted most strongly. To some extent, Ferrari has a point. Sure, neither Benetton nor Williams gained any advantage from the Elf they used in Brazil, but Ferrari’s point, that rules are rules, black and white, is valid. Ferrari’s implication, however, that teams are now going to infringe the rules in the expectation that their drivers will be able to retain points upon payment of a fine is ludicrous.

Our hope is that Ferrari’s vitriol will subside, that the first argument of the year will gradually fade away and everyone can get on with the business of competing on the track, rather than in the law courts.

There was some good racing in the opening stages of the Argentine Grand Prix. There is genuine cause to hope that Formula One can emerge from the tawdry goings-on of the past couple of years. The teams and their suppliers know the rules. The onus is upon them to respect them, in order that such hope may be fulfilled. And at a time when the sport’s public profile is in sore need of a polish, that, surely, is not too much to ask?