When an F1 rules farce scuppered two opportunistic drivers

Whatever happened to F1 drivers being allowed to get on with what they do best? It seems every move has become regulated to the point where a measuring tape, protractor and overhead images of corners are needed to decide which driver has the right to exit ahead of the other.

There was a time when F1 racers were credited with enough common sense and spatial awareness to work out the difference between a move that was marginal – as they all ought to be, given the very definition of driving at the limit – and one that was downright dangerous. In the case of the latter, drivers proved capable of policing themselves – with the shameful exception of their kangaroo court wrongly accusing Riccardo Patrese of causing Ronnie Peterson’s fatal accident at Monza in 1978.

Today, drivers race side-by-side into a corner steered subconsciously by a rule book that says a deft piece of positioning will place guilt on an innocent rival whose front wheels are now a millimetre on the wrong side of Art 56.7b, paragraph 10.7f, sub-section 97 (not allowing for Absolute Discretion, Force Majeure, drivers moaning, a following wind and the guilty party once having said they were a fan of Nelson Piquet). Terms and Conditions seem to mean more than Talent and Commitment.

Talking to Nigel Mansell at Goodwood recently, I was reminded that the need to avoid the influence of officials is not new, Nigel having been involved in a controversial incident created by race control the start of the 1989 Canadian GP.

Rain throughout the morning in Montreal had prompted officials to declare a ‘Wet Race’ which, at the time, meant tyre choice was free. During the final parade lap (there were two, thanks to a stalled car on the grid), a stiff breeze was causing the track to dry in places. Alessandro Nannini joined Mansell in deciding it was worth sacrificing grid position (13th for Nannini’s Benetton; 5th for Mansell’s Ferrari) and dive into the pits for slicks. The rules at the time were much as they are now; having made the tyre swap, Mansell and Nannini were required to go to the end of the pitlane and wait until a green light indicated that the race was under way and the last car had passed the pit exit.

Mansell arrived first. In the absence of either a red light or an official, Nigel assumed the race had started and continued accelerating. There was no pitlane speed limit in 1989. I had been watching from above this point and estimated Mansell was in third gear as he powered through the exit.

Mansell pitted before the start of the race to switch for slicks - a move that would hurt him due to F1's rulemakers error

Photo by: Motorsport Images

Seeing the approach of Nannini a few seconds later, someone switched on a flashing amber light. Assuming (correctly) this meant ‘re-join with caution’, Alessandro paused briefly and then booted the Benetton-Ford. Several seconds later the officials, standing on a gantry close by the pitlane exit, started the race. This was before Charlie Whiting assumed consistent command as race director. And the pitlane exit in 1989, unlike today, delivered cars onto the track mid-way through the fast first corner. Officials could have faced a catastrophe if the start had coincided with either Mansell or Nannini suddenly shooting from the other side of the concrete wall at speeds in excess of 120 mph.

It seems fair to ask why neither driver failed to realise the race had yet to start. Next time you watch a grand prix, note how long it takes for the grid to form and the red lights to go out. It’s much longer than you might think and, of course, Mansell and Nannini had lost all sense of time as they went through the drama of having their tyres switched. In which case, should team members on the pitwall have advised their respective drivers about the state of play on the starting grid? After the race, I put that question to Peter Collins, team manager at Benetton.

“We simply told Sandro to get down to the end of the pitlane,” said Collins.  “After that, we assumed the officials would take over and apply the rules. We were at the far end of the pits and couldn’t see the exit. Sandro followed Nigel, saw him accelerate straight out and naturally assumed the race was on.”

"Alessandro’s car was perfectly healthy when he was forced to stop. Our potential race income was denied by the officials’ incompetence" Peter Collins

Mansell and Nannini were subsequently black-flagged and excluded. In Mansell’s case, the disqualification was largely irrelevant since the Ferrari was about to retire with a mechanical failure. But, for Benetton, it was a disaster.

With Johnny Herbert having failed to qualify, Nannini had been Benetton’s sole representative in the race, but the penalty meant the team came away from Montreal with only the money earned from qualifying one car.

“Alessandro’s car was perfectly healthy when he was forced to stop. Our potential race income was denied by the officials’ incompetence,” was Collins’ blunt summary. Given Benetton’s excellent reliability record,
the inference was that Nannini could have been one of the few drivers left running at the end of a race in which intermittent but heavy rain caused havoc throughout.

Mansell and Nannini had contravened Article 127 of the Sporting Regulations which, at the time, precluded any competitor from leaving the pitlane less than 15 minutes before the start of the race. That’s all very well but, in the absence of lights or officials and you think the grand prix might be under way, you’re not going to hang around at the pit exit until someone turns up and says: “Oh, hello mate! Sorry, didn’t see you there. Yep, it’s okay. You can start if you like…”

Like I said, it’s usually preferable to let F1 drivers get on with what they do best.

The 1989 Canadian GP is often remembered for the wrong reasons

Photo by: Motorsport Images