Autosport: A Matter of Perception

Last Sunday morning, to a book fair. I wasn't looking specifically for racing books but in recent years there has been a growing proliferation of them at these affairs and a couple of stalls were offering little else. For a fiver I purchased Amateur Racing Driver by one T.P. Cholmondeley Tapper.

Cholmondeley (pronounced 'Chumley') Tapper was born in New Zealand but at 12 came to England with his family - which was clearly one of some substance, for he was eventually "packed off to university in Grenoble" for a couple of years prior to going up to Cambridge. While at Cambridge he decided to go motor racing and this was achieved by the simple expedient of buying a grand prix Bugatti.

Being familiar with Deauville, I was particularly interested in CT's account of the one and only grand prix run there, in 1936. In practice his Maserati clouted a kerb, damaging a wheel and tyre and also cracking a brake drum.

Things were different in those days. "The wheel and tyre could be replaced from my spares," wrote the author, "but the brake drum presented a difficult problem for there was obviously no hope of sending for a replacement before the race. We finally succeeded in getting the brakes of three wheels working efficiently but I knew I should have to drive with extreme care." Quite.

Giuseppe Farina, who would become the first world champion in 1950, learned of CT's predicament and was dismayed. How, he demanded, was he going to cope with braking on only three wheels?

Cholmondeley Tapper sounds to have been a chap in the Rob Walker tradition. "It was," he said, "a query I had anticipated. I told him I intended to drive with extra care. 'Perhaps,' Farina retorted, 'but what about us other drivers - you may run into us.' It was a remark that proved ironical in light of later events..."

Less than reassured by CT's words, Farina marched off to the race committee and lodged a protest, as a consequence of which the Maserati was not allowed to start: "This decision was a sound one, but at the time found little favour with me".

So where lay the irony in Farina's worry that Cholmondeley Tapper might 'run into other drivers'? In the race Farina came up to lap Marcel Lehoux. Always known for utter ruthlessness he nudged the ERA out of the way, whereupon as CT succinctly put it, "Lehoux was catapulted to an instant death". Different times indeed.

Although in his behaviour Farina was perhaps not greatly different from certain superstars of the modern era, the consequences of his actions certainly were: no roll-over bars in those days, no seat belts, no run-off areas, no helmets...

As I perused Amateur Racing Driver and other books on the stand I listened to conversation around me. "I've got a book signed by Raikkonen," volunteered the vendor, "and another one by Jenson Button..."

"No, don't think so," said the customer. "I still watch some of the races but to be honest I've got a bit disillusioned with it..."

How so? "Well, it's all fixed these days, isn't it? All fixed to help Ferrari..."

In recent days much has been written about 'perceptions' in our sport and here - at a small book fair in Dorking - was a lapsed F1 fan making his case. The recent business with Alonso at Monza was merely the latest in a long list, he suggested. What about the sudden mass damper system ban? What about the Michelin affair three years ago? What about 1999 when Ferrari had a one-two at Sepang, then got disqualified (illegal barge boards), then - a week later - got reinstated (barge boards no longer illegal)? And on, and on.

While defending the FIA stewards' decision to penalise Fernando Alonso for - inadvertently - holding up Felipe Massa in qualifying at Monza, Max Mosley was asked if he thought it unfortunate that some might be tempted to believe forces were at work to help Michael Schumacher and Ferrari to yet another world championship.

Max Mosley © LAT

"That," replied Mosley, "is only the down-the-pub conspiracy theorists. It's just not like that." And he went on to point out that this year Schumacher had been penalised at both Monaco and the Hungaroring. True enough, but who can count the number of occasions in the past when Michael's excesses, in a sport obsessed with safety, went unpunished?

The fellow at the book fair would, I guess, be counted by Max as a 'down-the-pub conspiracy theorist', but that doesn't mean his opinion - his perception - is of no account. It was very clear from the facts he trotted out that, disillusioned or not, he remained well-informed on current events in F1.

And the point, surely, is that even if Ferrari has not been... looked upon kindly in recent years, the perception of a great many people - in the paddock as well as in the grandstands - is to the contrary.

Perception - even if incorrect - is not something to be ignored, as Mosley himself has acknowledged. In defending the FIA's decision some years ago to 'legalise' traction control once more, he came out with sundry arguments in justification of the decision, one of which was that during the time in which such systems had been banned, rumours persisted that not all teams had observed the ban. Had been cheating, in other words. Even if that were not so, Max said, even if it were merely a perception, still it was enormously damaging to the sport that such things were being said.

Quite true and it's the same now with regard to the perception that Ferrari is 'a special case'. Nothing will persuade me that what happened to Alonso at Monza was other than unjust and it stemmed originally from a response from Massa - and Ferrari - that smacked of brats in a kindergarten.

The stewards - none of whom to the best of my knowledge has ever driven an F1 car at 200mph - might have done well to take note of the opinions of those who have. All a matter of perception, you see.

And the perception at Monza was here was yet another controversy out of which Ferrari came well and its main opposition did not. It is good that following the uproar the other weekend there has been an emergency re-think, so that from now on a driver will be punished only if he deliberately impedes another, but that doesn't help Alonso.

The pity is that the rule was not correctly written in the first place - and that it was invoked in circumstances which inevitably added weight to an already widespread perception.

"I just hope," said the man on Sunday morning, "that Alonso wins it." One imagines Mr Cholmondeley Tapper would have voted the same way.