Ask Nigel: November 14

Dear Nick,
Gilles got on famously with all his team mates - including Didier Pironi, until the very last weeks of his life.

Thinking back - and I can't believe it's almost 20 years he's been gone - he was the kind of fellow you couldn't not get on with. When I was reminiscing about him, shortly after his death, I wrote that, 'The fans loved him, because he, of all the guys out there, was so clearly working without a net'. And that really was the case. I loved to watch Gilles drive because, more than anyone else I have ever seen, he really was 'at the edge', but at the same time I always feared for him, because it was clear that if any one of them was destined to go out on his shield, it was him. He left no margin at all.

Out of the car, he was different again: if the feistiness was never far from the surface, he was essentially a gentle character, absolutely fearless in what he said (be it about Bernie or anyone else), totally honest and straightforward, and with a tremendous sense of fun. The other drivers loved him as much as the journalists.

Villeneuve had his first F1 drive with McLaren, at Silverstone in 1977, but for the rest of his career was only to drive Ferraris. In '78, his team mate was Carlos Reutemann, a charming man and a brilliant driver, but also an immensely temperamental one, who had notably poor relationships with two other team mates, Niki Lauda and Alan Jones. With Villeneuve, though, there was never a problem, and nor was there with Jody Scheckter in 1979 and '80 - despite the fact that Gilles was invariably the quicker of the two.

Then, in '81, Pironi joined Ferrari, and although Villeneuve had much the upper hand, through that first season there were no problems between them.

Early in '82, Pironi had a huge testing accident at Paul Ricard, which left him very shaken. At Rio he was completely off his game, and I remember that Gilles took me on one side, and asked me to have a quiet word with my colleagues: "Please ask them not to give Didier a hard time. OK, he's off the pace, but he's had a hell of a shock. He'll be fine in a couple of weeks. Ask them to go easy on him..."

Take my word for it, this is not standard behaviour for a racing driver. Normally, they'll capitalise on the slightest sign of weakness in a team mate, Pironi did not reply in kind. He was a superb Grand Prix driver, potentially a great one, in my opinion, but he was also much more of a politician than the guileless Villeneuve. In early April of '82 Gilles and his wife Joann were stunned to read in the papers that Didier had got married - with Ferrari team director Marco Piccinini as best man. The Villeneuves had not been so much as invited.

Then came Imola, where the Ferraris, marginal on fuel, were cruising to a one-two, Gilles ahead. At the last passing place on the last lap, Pironi suddenly spurted by Villeneuve, and literally stole the victory. Some people thought they had been 'racing', that Didier had beaten Gilles in a straight fight; it was anything but that.

I was in the parc ferme when they came in, Villeneuve slewing to a halt in a cloud of tyre smoke. His body language was eloquent as he climbed out, took off his helmet. He looked across at me. "The guy's a c***!" he said, and stalked away.

An hour later, he was in his beloved Agusta helicopter, en route back to Monaco. Among those joining him on the flight was Jackie Stewart.

"I'd never seen him angry like that," Stewart said. "You know, with him the World Championship was incidental. He told me his one goal was to beat the record for the most wins, which I then held, and this one had been stolen from him. He was stunned. There had always been this innocence about Gilles - he didn't have a trace of maliciousness in him, and he couldn't believe what had happened. It was awful that the last days of his life were so tormented and disillusioned."

So indeed they were. A couple of days later I called the apartment in Monte Carlo, and we talked for an hour and more. It was a conversation which left me disturbed and apprehensive. He was never going to speak to Pironi again, he said. "I've declared war. Absolute war.

"Finishing second is one thing - I'd have been mad at myself for not being quick enough if he'd beaten me. But finishing second because the bastard steals it..."

It was the duplicity that Villeneuve couldn't stomach. As Stewart said, what truly mattered to Gilles was winning races - that, and being known as the fastest driver on earth. It was deeply offensive to him that some believed he had been beaten in a straight fight.

"People seemed to think we had the battle of our lives," he muttered. "Jesus Christ, I qualified a second and a half faster than him - where was my problem? I think I've proved that, in equal cars, if I want someone to stay behind me...well, I think he stays behind..."

So what now? I said. "In Belgium, if we get a repeat of Imola, running 1-2, short of fuel, than I guess we're both going to run out, right? If it's a matter of trying to pass him at the end of the straight, I'll take the same chance as if it were a Williams or a Brabham. I'll do what I should have done at Imola."

Off we went to Belgium, to Zolder, and there, in the closing minutes of qualifying, Villeneuve crashed to his death, after tangling with a backmarker who was tooling back to the pits.

For some of us, particularly at a time when so much else was awry with racing, the loss of Gilles was almost too much to take in. Lauda said it best: "He was the greatest driver in the world, with more talent than any of us. And I liked him even more than I admired him."

Had he lived, would he have moved to Williams or McLaren for 1983? Whatever else, he told me, he would not stay at Ferrari if Pironi were there, and there is no doubt he was infuriated by Piccinini's refusal to acknowledge Pironi's duplicity at Imola. For all his deep love of Ferrari, I don't doubt he would have left at the end of the season.




Dear Matt,
I have to confess I was extremely surprised to learn that Gary Anderson was going back to work for Eddie Jordan, albeit in a different role from that which he played first time round. The two men have been friends forever, and when EJ went into F1, Anderson was recruited as the team's technical director.

Although Jordan did not achieve a conspicuous amount of success, Anderson was considered a fixture in the team, but towards the end of '90s that situation changed, not least when Mike Gascoyne (formerly with Tyrrell) was hired. By the end of 1998, Gary had parted company with Jordan, and gone to work for Stewart Grand Prix, which later metamorphosed into Jaguar, of course.

Two years after that, he parted company with Jaguar, and in 2001 has worked for Reynard in the CART series. When I saw him at Milwaukee in June, he told me how happy he was in his new environment, and I doubted he would ever come back into F1.

Now he has, though, and with Jordan, too. F1 insiders to whom I have spoken wonder at the wisdom of the decision. For one thing, the team's designer is Eghbal Hamidy, with whom Anderson worked at Stewart, and I hear tell they did not have the greatest relationship.

Time will tell whether or not this is a good move - by both parties. Gary has enthusiasm you can't buy, and has always been hugely respected by the mechanics, not least because of his willingness to get stuck in, to do the hands-on stuff that most engineers at his level would not contemplate. But some have murmured that this is also his great weakness - that he tries to do too much.

Will 'personality clashes' result from Anderson's going back to the team with which he was long considered synonymous? Could be. But my understanding is that Eddie Jordan himself was strongly in favour of his return, so maybe you're right: maybe they do need each other, after all.




Dear Michael,
Until a few weeks ago, I would have agreed with you, but recent events have changed my mind. When first I learned of the manufacturers' plan possibly to run their own racing series, in the spring, I really didn't take it seriously, and neither did my colleagues in the press room. A few weeks later, Bobby Rahal told me we were wrong - the manufacturers were indeed deadly serious. And now, six months on, I am inclined to believe he was right.

The thing is, this is not like the 'FISA-FOCA War' of 1980/81, when the FOCA teams (spearheaded by Bernie Ecclestone) were at loggerheads with the governing body, first over a technical issue of the time, and second - and much more importantly - over the FIA's determination to take over the running of 'commercial affairs' in F1, in particular the TV rights. These had for a long time been negotiated, with great success, by Bernie Ecclestone, and he was not willing for that situation to change.

Eventually, everything was settled between the two parties, the FOCA giving way on the technical issue, the FIA formally awarding the FOCA (ie Bernie) the right to run F1's commercial affairs, TV rights included.

In an attempt to put pressure on the governing body, the FOCA teams had threatened to organise their own 'breakaway' championship, which would have left only Ferrari, Renault and Alfa Romeo (the three major manufacturers involved at the time) to run in the official FIA F1 World Championship. Most saw it as nothing more than an elaborate scam - just as we did earlier this year when we heard of the manufacturers' threat.

I think we were wrong. What is different this time is that we're not talking about a split, about a 'breakaway' championship. Essentially, we're talking about everyone - in terms of the teams - being on the same side.

Nor, this time, is the dispute with the governing body. A year ago, the FIA sold its commercial interest in the World Championship to SLEC, one of Bernie Ecclestone's companies, for $313m, the deal to run for 100 years, no less, beginning in 2011.

Problem is, Bernie sold a 75% stake in SLEC to EM-TV in Germany, which company then sold it on to the Kirch Group in the same country. Recently I was in Stuttgart for a Mercedes function, and at an informal press briefing Norbert Haug put it this way; "I don't think it's in the interest of F1 that one media group should own 75% of the shares in it."

Ron Dennis explained the situation from the teams' point of view: "All the F1 teams get income - TV and prize money - from SLEC, which amounts to between 12 and 15% of their budgets. That's important, certainly, but the fundamental thing we need is stability - that's what this is all about. About 300 million people watch F1 on TV every two weeks. That's our audience, and if we don't have that audience, we will never attract the other revenue - the sponsorship - we need.

I have no problem with someone - Bernie - who has created something, and made it happen, having the level of commercial benefit that Bernie's companies enjoy. But I have a significant problem with a third party, which has contributed zero to the future of grand prix racing, taking that same commercial benefit. Therefore the time will come when the teams - some of whom are manufacturers, some partly owned by manufacturers, and some completely independent - feel completely justified in asking for a greater share of the revenue stream. What are we looking for from Kirch? An acceptable commercial deal."

Jurgen Hubbert, the Mercedes director most closely involved in motor sport, laid it out for the manufacturers. "We have started discussions with Kirch about the future of F1, and for one reason only: to stabilise the platform. Seven of the 10 important automotive groups are directly involved in F1.

"Bernie Ecclestone is 71, and sometimes not in the best shape. We want to make sure we stabilise this formula, this platform, for the future. That's why we started these discussions - long before he sold a big stake to EM-TV, which later came to Kirch. We want to discuss with Kirch, to make sure that the manufacturers - who have spent a lot of money to build up the sport - can have confidence in the future. We have to talk about how many races, in which countries, live on free TV, and all the other issues you have seen in the newspapers.

"We're still in the middle of discussions with Kirch, and so are the teams, but in a parallel sense. Soon the manufacturers will found a company that is capable of starting, and running, a series of races - if there is no final agreement with Kirch. That would at least mean that F1 would go on until the end of 2007, and then in 2008 there would be something new.

"This is something we have to do to make sure we can keep stability, but as I said this is only if we don't reach agreement with those partners who actually own F1. We're not in a hurry, but I think we need to resolve this within the next year. It will take some time to build something new up, but maybe we can step in earlier if we need to. For now, it's very much linked to the Concorde Agreement, which runs to the end of 2007. Maybe there will be a quiet period for a few weeks or months, and then we'll see what the outcome is of the discussions.

"The manufacturers are totally committed to staying in this racing arena - although maybe we can't call it 'Formula 1' any more after the year 2007. Whatever, the manufacturer will race in this premier series, and, from my perspective, there can only be one.

"How optimistic am I that we reach a solution? My personal feeling is that it would be crazy not to come an agreement, because we really admire what Bernie has done so far in building F1, and to destroy this - just for fun - and to start something new would not be easy. But we are willing to do that to safeguard both our money and the future of F1, and I think this feeling is the same in all of my colleagues. The new company would have a board of directors, representing Ford (Jaguar), Fiat (Ferrari), BMW, Renault and Mercedes-Benz."

"The target we have set ourselves is that this sport remains independent, on 'free' TV, with independent teams, and a management team for the future. We want Bernie to stay as long as he wants to stay - not for a single moment have we discussed anything else - but after Bernie we want a management team to run the business."

"If things do change," said Dennis, "everything will be in place well before 2008, so that there is a completely seamless transition into whatever form of racing follows in 2007. There would be no necessity for us to use the FIA as a regulatory body, if we found ourselves in that position in 2007. We could have our own."

Going back to your original question, Michael, I really don't think it's a question of a 'breakaway series being doomed' - because this would not be a breakaway series. Unless agreement with Kirch is reached, all the manufacturers and teams will be on the same side. It's true that Bernie won't be losing sleep about it, because he's done his deal, and got his money, but if Kirch doesn't reach agreement with the manufacturers and teams, what have they paid all that money for, if they won't have anything to televise? As Dennis put it, "What value a theatre with no actors?"

I'm sure that Hubbert is right, that agreement has to be reached, but if it isn't, don't be in any doubt about the seriousness of the manufacturers and teams going their own way.




Dear David,
Looking back, I have a particular affection for the 1979 season, not least because it was the year in which both Frank Williams's team and Ferrari's Gilles Villeneuve truly made their mark.

Ferrari's 312T4 had more power than the Williams-Cosworth FW07, but far less grip, and this made for some memorable battles between Villeneuve and Alan Jones - although, as so often, consistency won the day in the end, and Gilles's team mate, Jody Scheckter, won the World Championship, appropriately at Monza.

On the quick circuits the turbocharged Renaults of Jean-Pierre Jabouille and Rene Arnoux had the legs of everything else, but fortunately for the rest they were generally unreliable. A particular memory of that summer, of course, was the fantastic battle between Villeneuve and Arnoux during the closing laps of the French Grand Prix at Dijon.

That year's World Championship was run at some wonderful circuits, among them the 'original' Buenos Aires, the 'original' Interlagos, the 'original' Kyalami, as well as Long Beach, the Osterreichring, Zandvoort and Watkins Glen. At several races there were as many as 35 entries.

As for the drivers, the overall standard was extremely high: Villeneuve, Scheckter, Jones, Niki Lauda, Mario Andretti, Emerson Fittipaldi, Clay Regazzoni, Jacques Laffite, Patrick Depailler, Carlos Reutemann, Arnoux, John Watson, Didier Pironi, Elio de Angelis, Riccardo Patrese, Nelson Piquet.

A vintage year, all in all, and good from another point of view, too. Racing was infinitely more perilous back then, yet during the entire season there was not a single serious injury.



Dear Garry,
I started covering F1 in 1971, so just missed the great year of Ferrari's beautiful 312B, but it did race occasionally in '71, so I'll start with that.

Another favourite was the Matra MS120D, probably the best chassis of 1972. Unfortunately, its V12 engine didn't give much horsepower, but anyone who ever heard it will tell you it had a wailing scream like no other.

The Lotus 79, as driven by Mario Andretti and Ronnie Peterson in 1978, was an exquisite-looking car, as well as easily the best of that season, and some of Gordon Murray's successful Brabham designs in the '70s and early '80s - notably the BT44, BT49 and BT52 - were works of art, I thought.

As the wind tunnel more and more dictated the shape of racing cars, they became - to my eye - less elegant, and also less individual. I thought the McLaren-Hondas of the late '80s and early '90s were good to look at, and so were a couple of John Barnard's creations for Ferrari: the 641 of 1990, and the 412T2 of 1995. This year, I thought the Ferrari F2001 - uniquely, in this era, featuring other than a high nose - the most attractive car. As well as the fastest.

For sheer beauty, though, I think we need to go back further, to the 'long nose' Maserati 250F of 1957, and the gorgeous Eagle-Weslake of 1967.