Controversy in East Midlands

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

Current page

109

Current page

110

Current page

111

Current page

112

Current page

113

Current page

114

Current page

115

Current page

116

Smoke pours from the vast, fat power station towers on the horizon between Nottingham and Derby, and although the gathering gloom concealed the fact at Donington Park, a smoke cloud of equal proportions rose above Tom Walkinshaw’s motorhome. The Silk Cut Jaguars had been excluded from the results of the seventh round of the World Sports-Prototype Championship, on a track that might fairly be described as ‘home’ (it’s nearer than Silverstone to Coventry), and all but a few spectators had gone home believing in Martin Brundle’s inspired drive to third place.

Was it an act of vengeance? Did the stewards judge harshly to make up for the exclusion of Jochen Mass’ Mercedes at Silverstone? Almost certainly not. We have already expressed our own views about FISA’s zealous use of an over-large rule book, but this was no vendetta. To over-fuel one car could be a sheer accident, but to over-fuel another immediately afterwards is sheer carelessness.

In a typically robust statement, Walkinshaw blamed the throng of photographers and film crew around the pits, but these are the people that all the manufacturers and sponsors most want to greet, in the interests of popularising the rather sickly Group C World Championship.

As Martin Brundle said next day, if the team had short-changed him of 0.8 litres, and he’d run out on the last lap, there’d have been hell to pay; last year Jean-Louis Schlesser nearly lost his World Champion title just because his Mercedes was short-changed at the last stop at Spa. Truly, the line between right and wrong is very thin, but it has a very sharp edge.

Once an offence is established the stewards have to inflict the punishment, just as if the police chose to prosecute a motorist for doing 71 mph on a motorway, and the case was proved, the magistrates would have to penalise. Spice team manager Jeff Hazell was quite within his rights to go to the stewards, though he didn’t have to protest Jaguar because the matter was already in hand.

HazeII points out: “Recently the IMSA organisation fined a competitor $2000 for having an oversize fuel tank, I asked, what’s the fine for going 20 litres oversize, because we’ll pay!” It’s all to do with gaining an unfair advantage, deliberate or not doesn’t matter, and Oscar Larrauri, who covered the last kilometre on his Porsche’s starter motor, would have had a strong grievance if Jaguar had ‘got away with it’.

It was surely distressing for Walkinshaw, and the whole team, to face two disqualifications, but it was pointless to blame the media. The pit-lane at Le Mans is always ten times more crowded, and well-drilled refuellers shouldn’t make mistakes like that.

Having covered the point, though, we can ruminate on the absurdity of the fuel consumption formula, which thankfully will reach its conclusion in Mexico on October 7 (except for those teams which must continue with turbocharged engines in the short-term, though not contenders for the podiums).

There are several ways of restricting the performances of different engines: by limiting the engine size, the engine speed, the consumption of fuel, or the consumption of air. Back in 1981, when fuel was in a ‘precious’ phase, it seemed such a good idea to introduce a formula by which manufacturers could come up with any type or size of engine, so long as it didn’t use more than 60 litres of fuel per 100 kilometres.

The drivers hated it, of course, none more vociferously than Derek Bell at Silverstone in May 1982. Perforce they learned new driving techniques, and some circuits are easier on fuel than others, but even now competitors tend to run short, or worse, run out of fuel on the last lap, and this means nothing but disappointment for all concerned.

FISA missed a golden opportunity to ration the air in 1984/5 when a rapprochement was reached with the IMSA organisation. The love affair was shortlived and afterwards the air-restrictor idea went with the bathwater down the plughole. The IMSA drivers lived happily ever after, and the FISA drivers continued to struggle with the fuel gauge.

Next year it will all be different. New cars will come from Mercedes, Jaguar, Peugeot, Spice-Lamborghini, Brun-Judd (or Neotech), March and Lola, and later from Toyota, Nissan and Alfa Romeo. There will be no limit on power or consumption but, unless FISA acts quickly, there will be controversy about ‘mad chemists’ as Cosworth’s chief engine designer Geoff Goddard calls them, creating new brews of steroid fuel that can pump the power up by an extra 50-60 horsepower. Formula 1 doesn’t need these alchemists, Group C needs them even less.

Spice’s V12 sighted

The wraps came off the first of next year’s challengers at Donington, the Chrysler-Lamborghini-powered Spice SE91C. The beautifully crafted little 3 1/2-litre, V12 engine, so small that it makes a DFZ look like something out of a MAN truck, was designed by Mauro Forghieri but it was his partner, Daniele Audetto, who attended the launch. With him was Heini Mader, the famed Swiss tuner, who will look after the V12s during the test programme, having prepared two different specifications.

The lower powered has around 600 bhp with massive low-down torque, the other some 625 bhp produced higher up the range suitable, no doubt, for tracks like Monza and Spa. “It just shows how small we’ll have to make our next car,” observed Spice Engineering director Ray BeIlm, peering down into the engine bay. There might be one proviso, though, BeIlm himself is over six-foot tall and built like a rugby forward, and no doubt he’ll be wanting to test the car himself!

Credit Due

Back in March a Swede called Per Arwidsson, unknown to most people in Group C racing, named a Scotsman, Anthony Reid, to share the driving of his new Porsche 962C with Anders Olofsson, of whom we had all heard. The car would be owned and sponsored by Arwidsson’s company, Convector, in estate and not in heating as many supposed.

Reid’s light burned only briefly back in 1985 when he was Maurizio Sandro Sala’s team-mate in the short-lived Madgwick Racing Reynard-Saab. After that he became resigned to a living just above the level of clubbies, earning his crust by instructing at the Jim Russell Racing Schools.

Team manager Bo Strandell somehow remembered Reid’s name and put it on his shortlist, along with those of Harri Toivonen and Bengt Tragardh, but Reid had to beat those drivers in tests at Monza to secure the drive.

Even then it was difficult to make a name, the Porsche being only one of those hopelessly outclassed this season, but Reid’s third place at Le Mans, in the Alpha Racing entry with Tiff Needell and David Sears, made everyone note his name carefully.

Most of the Porsche teams have special chassis nowadays, honeycombs or composites, and the top ones have 3.2-litre engines as well. A ‘straight from the box’ factory built 962, with a normal customer 3-litre engine, is hardly rated a mention . . . . except at Donington, where Reid was the fastest Porsche driver on race day! He made the eighth quickest time of the race, at lm 25.128s, and was three-tenths faster than Oscar Larrauri’s honeycomb chassis, 3.2-litre Brun Porsche, four-tenths faster than Jonathan Palmer’s 3.2-litre ‘works’ Porsche, and 1.2 secs faster than Bob Wollek’s ditto.

“Tyres” they’ll all say, it’s all to do with the tyres. Of course, Reid was running his boring Porsche on unfashionable Dunlops, not the made-to-measure Michelins, Goodyears or Yokohamas. We think Bo Strandell and Anthony Reid should take a bow. MLC

Related articles

Related products