Why were Peugeot engines so crap?

[darkapprentice77]

They had alot of money, so why?

[tzerof1]

The answer is simple: Peugeot only became an F1 engine supplier in 1994 because they decided to halt their Group C sportscar program. The engine that McLaren used in 1994 was just a modified version of the engine used int the Peugeot 905 as a matter of fact. They were never able to really develop a working relationship with a team in the way that Renault had with Williams or Mercedes have with McLaren. And when Prost tried to do that in 1998-2000, that came at a time when the resources of Peugeot Sport were more focused on their WRC program, thus the engines ended up being what they were.

[Benetton]

However, weren't they pretty decent in the 1997 Jordan?

[JeremyMcClean]

However, weren't they pretty decent in the 1997 Jordan?

Maybe, but they must have been crap enouh for Jordan to get Hondas to replace them...not every day you hear that

[pasta_maldonado]

The answer is simple: Peugeot only became an F1 engine supplier in 1994 because they decided to halt their Group C sportscar program. The engine that McLaren used in 1994 was just a modified version of the engine used int the Peugeot 905 as a matter of fact. They were never able to really develop a working relationship with a team in the way that Renault had with Williams or Mercedes have with McLaren. And when Prost tried to do that in 1998-2000, that came at a time when the resources of Peugeot Sport were more focused on their WRC program, thus the engines ended up being what they were.

They were so crap because basically Peugeot could not be bathplugging bothered to designed a new engine for F1, so they stole the sportscar engine, which, when placed in an F1 car, thought it was a volcano and blew up.

[Barbazza]

Have you ever been in a Peugeot road car? There's your answer.

[Ataxia]

They got through something like 56 engines in 2000 alone...or 3.29 engines per race weekend. No wonder Prost and Alesi were disillusioned.

[Stramala]

Cos the French like setting them on fire innit.

[David AGS]

I think they had a lot of money, but not as much as some of the other manufs. (Merc, Ferrari and Reno)

Things take time, as said before McLaren was their real BIG team, and Dennis at that time saw the cheques, but also saw the writing on the wall and backed out.

They hardly had any developments, and engines were plagued by reliability issues, their solutiuon? Drop power.

[eurobrun]

Weren't the Asiatech engined modified Peugoets?

[East Londoner]

Weren't the Asiatech engined modified Peugoets?

Modified? They were exactly the same at the last race of 2001 as they had been at the last race of 2000!

I think it was the only engine used in 2001 that didn't change at all that season. Even the bloody 1998 Ford engine used by Minardi had some development.

[eurobrun]

Weren't the Asiatech engines modified Peugoets?

Modified? They were exactly the same at the last race of 2001 as they had been at the last race of 2000!

I think it was the only engine used in 2001 that didn't change at all that season. Even the bloody 1998 Ford engine used by Minardi had some development.

That's strange, I don't ever seem to recall Arrows being that unreliable in 2001.

[ibsey]

However, weren't they pretty decent in the 1997 Jordan?

Maybe, but they must have been crap enouh for Jordan to get Hondas to replace them...not every day you hear that

IIRC Jordan didn't willingly give up the 1997 Peugeot engines.

The answer is simple: Peugeot only became an F1 engine supplier in 1994 because they decided to halt their Group C sportscar program. The engine that McLaren used in 1994 was just a modified version of the engine used int the Peugeot 905 as a matter of fact. They were never able to really develop a working relationship with a team in the way that Renault had with Williams or Mercedes have with McLaren. And when Prost tried to do that in 1998-2000, that came at a time when the resources of Peugeot Sport were more focused on their WRC program, thus the engines ended up being what they were.

In addition to this...Also Jean Todt had left Peugeot just before they got into F1 because he felt Peugeot weren't taking F1 seriously enough. Peugeot they hired Jean Pierre Jauboille (sp?) to replace him. Whom EJ said in his book, despite being a very nice man, didn't really know an awful lot about running an F1 engine team.

Finally I think Martin Brundle in his book explained how whenever his Peugeot engine used to blow up in his 1994 Mclaren. It was usually the same fault, something about a flywheel. Anyway IIRC he felt the Peugeot engineers didn't always listen to him & even blamed him from the failures.

[Faustus]

However, weren't they pretty decent in the 1997 Jordan?

Maybe, but they must have been crap enouh for Jordan to get Hondas to replace them...not every day you hear that

IIRC Jordan didn't willingly give up the 1997 Peugeot engines.

I remember that as well. Peugeot wanted badly to be involved with Prost, despite having I think 1 year left on their contract, so Eddie Jordan got some compensation money out of Peugeot.

[Faustus]

Weren't the Asiatech engines modified Peugoets?

Modified? They were exactly the same at the last race of 2001 as they had been at the last race of 2000!

I think it was the only engine used in 2001 that didn't change at all that season. Even the bloody 1998 Ford engine used by Minardi had some development.

That's strange, I don't ever seem to recall Arrows being that unreliable in 2001.

15 retirements out of 34 starts. Not as bad as some, but not brilliant in any way.
The Asiatech engines were essentially unchanged from early 2000, so they were desesperately down on power and torque. The half-decent results that the Arrows A22 achieved had very little to do with the engines. The car had a very small fuel tank and Arrows took a few gambles with pitstop strategy and some of them could have paid off nicely, but ultimately there was only 1 point.

[FullMetalJack]

15 retirements out of 34 starts. Not as bad as some, but not brilliant in any way.
The Asiatech engines were essentially unchanged from early 2000, so they were desesperately down on power and torque. The half-decent results that the Arrows A22 achieved had very little to do with the engines. The car had a very small fuel tank and Arrows took a few gambles with pitstop strategy and some of them could have paid off nicely, but ultimately there was only 1 point.

Verstappen running 2nd at Sepang undoubtedly the highlight, it was good seeing him that high up the grid.

[East Londoner]

15 retirements out of 34 starts. Not as bad as some, but not brilliant in any way.
The Asiatech engines were essentially unchanged from early 2000, so they were desesperately down on power and torque. The half-decent results that the Arrows A22 achieved had very little to do with the engines. The car had a very small fuel tank and Arrows took a few gambles with pitstop strategy and some of them could have paid off nicely, but ultimately there was only 1 point.

Verstappen running 2nd at Sepang undoubtedly the highlight, it was good seeing him that high up the grid.

Didn't he also run 2nd for a while in Austria because of a different strategy to everyone else and Schumi/Montoya were busy examining gravel traps?

[David AGS]

I just read the top 50 McLaren drivers on their website (mclaren.com), and got to... Philippe Alliott.

What I read is that Brundle and Alliott did like a shootout. Jean Pierre Jabouille (Pug boss) who was Alliott's mate decided to put a bale of hay on the Magny Cours track where the shootout took place on Brundle's lap, forcing the Brit to back off and therefore recording a slower lap, as seen on the telemetr

The bale was moved for Alliott, and Jabouille tried to prove a point to Ron Dennis (I presume) that his compatriot was faster, and he should get the drive.

This is high up of the Rejectfullness list I presume!

[Enforcer]

I just read the top 50 McLaren drivers on their website (mclaren.com), and got to... Philippe Alliott.

What I read is that Brundle and Alliott did like a shootout. Jean Pierre Jabouille (Pug boss) who was Alliott's mate decided to put a bale of hay on the Magny Cours track where the shootout took place on Brundle's lap, forcing the Brit to back off and therefore recording a slower lap, as seen on the telemetr

The bale was moved for Alliott, and Jabouille tried to prove a point to Ron Dennis (I presume) that his compatriot was faster, and he should get the drive.

This is high up of the Rejectfullness list I presume!

Lol. The way you described that wasn't so much rejectful as it was improbably comedic. I had this image of Jaboullie trying to sneak a hay-bale on to the track whilst they were readying Brundle's car, and then try to get rid of it again after his run so people wouldn't believe him when he said it was there.

It was at Paul Ricard and the hay-bale chicane was supposed to be there as part of the test. And initially Alliot was slower than Brundle, cos Brundle was a bit better at being an F1 driver. Then he was mysteriously faster and they caught him on the telemetry because he hadn't backed off. So did he just go around it or was it removed?

Incidentally, Alliot's the only one behind Michael Andretti on that list. Ouch.

EDIT: Actually, I just noticed Mansell's immediately ahead of Andretti. Now that's a bit unfair, Andretti actually scored points for McLaren.

[eurobrun]

I just read the top 50 McLaren drivers on their website (mclaren.com), and got to... Philippe Alliott.

What I read is that Brundle and Alliott did like a shootout. Jean Pierre Jabouille (Pug boss) who was Alliott's mate decided to put a bale of hay on the Magny Cours track where the shootout took place on Brundle's lap, forcing the Brit to back off and therefore recording a slower lap, as seen on the telemetr

The bale was moved for Alliott, and Jabouille tried to prove a point to Ron Dennis (I presume) that his compatriot was faster, and he should get the drive.

This is high up of the Rejectfullness list I presume!

Lol. The way you described that wasn't so much rejectful as it was improbably comedic. I had this image of Jaboullie trying to sneak a hay-bale on to the track whilst they were readying Brundle's car, and then try to get rid of it again after his run so people wouldn't believe him when he said it was there. :lol:

It was at Paul Ricard and the hay-bale chicane was supposed to be there as part of the test. And initially Alliot was slower than Brundle, cos Brundle was a bit better at being an F1 driver. Then he was mysteriously faster and they caught him on the telemetry because he hadn't backed off. So did he just go around it or was it removed?

Incidentally, Alliot's the only one behind Michael Andretti on that list. Ouch. :lol:

EDIT: Actually, I just noticed Mansell's immediately ahead of Andretti. Now that's a bit unfair, Andretti actually scored points for McLaren.

Oh dear, I can imagine that happening at Minardi or something like that but Mclaren :lol: :lol: :lol:

[WaffleCat]

I just read the top 50 McLaren drivers on their website (mclaren.com), and got to... Philippe Alliott.

What I read is that Brundle and Alliott did like a shootout. Jean Pierre Jabouille (Pug boss) who was Alliott's mate decided to put a bale of hay on the Magny Cours track where the shootout took place on Brundle's lap, forcing the Brit to back off and therefore recording a slower lap, as seen on the telemetr

The bale was moved for Alliott, and Jabouille tried to prove a point to Ron Dennis (I presume) that his compatriot was faster, and he should get the drive.

This is high up of the Rejectfullness list I presume!

Lol. The way you described that wasn't so much rejectful as it was improbably comedic. I had this image of Jaboullie trying to sneak a hay-bale on to the track whilst they were readying Brundle's car, and then try to get rid of it again after his run so people wouldn't believe him when he said it was there.

It was at Paul Ricard and the hay-bale chicane was supposed to be there as part of the test. And initially Alliot was slower than Brundle, cos Brundle was a bit better at being an F1 driver. Then he was mysteriously faster and they caught him on the telemetry because he hadn't backed off. So did he just go around it or was it removed?

Incidentally, Alliot's the only one behind Michael Andretti on that list. Ouch.

EDIT: Actually, I just noticed Mansell's immediately ahead of Andretti. Now that's a bit unfair, Andretti actually scored points for McLaren.

Who knows,maybe Alloit just piled through the hay.

[David AGS]

On that im defending Philippe. Andretti had the best part of a season while Aliott had just 1 race in a car that was not as good as the 1993 car.

I dont think Alliott was the worst driver out there too. Had a chance at Ligier, didnt take it and then was stuck with a heap of French teams that were average at best

[dr-baker]

Was Jan Magnussen on that list by any chance? Or Stephen South?

[James1978]

Why does the list only start at #6?

The 5 missing are probably Senna, Prost, Hakkinen, Hunt and McLaren himself!!!

And also they list Kimi Raikkonen at #15 but said they're excluding current drivers, which includes Alonso and Kovalainen (surely Heikki's good enough to be top 50 when Michael Andretti's in!!!) so it doesn't just mean Hamilton and Button who currently drive for them.......oops.

[midgrid]

Why does the list only start at #6?

The 5 missing are probably Senna, Prost, Hakkinen, Hunt and McLaren himself!!!

And also they list Kimi Raikkonen at #15 but said they're excluding current drivers, which includes Alonso and Kovalainen (surely Heikki's good enough to be top 50 when Michael Andretti's in!!!) so it doesn't just mean Hamilton and Button who currently drive for them.......oops.

It's been steadily counting down from 50, so #5 will be revealed next. Presumably Bruce won't be on the list as he is so obviously the #1 that he doesn't need to be included.

It's a pretty terrible list by any standards.

[ibsey]

It is easy to forget that a top team like Mclaren had to hire drivers like Jan Magnussen, Stephen South, Mark Blundell & of course Philippe Alliott.

What I read is that Brundle and Alliott did like a shootout. Jean Pierre Jabouille (Pug boss) who was Alliott's mate decided to put a bale of hay on the Magny Cours track where the shootout took place on Brundle's lap, forcing the Brit to back off and therefore recording a slower lap, as seen on the telemetr

The bale was moved for Alliott, and Jabouille tried to prove a point to Ron Dennis (I presume) that his compatriot was faster, and he should get the drive.

Great story David AGS. I wonder if the fact that Brundle got the drive over (Pug boss's mate) Alliott, caused the supposed animosity that Brundle later felt Peugeot had towards him. As I stated earlier IIRC in Martin Brundle's book, 'Working the Wheel' he explained how whenever his Peugeot engine used to blow up in his 1994 Mclaren. It was usually the same fault, something about a flywheel. Anyway IIRC he felt the Peugeot engineers didn't always listen to him & even blamed him from the failures. Interesting thought.

[pasta_maldonado]

It is easy to forget that a top team like Mclaren had to hire drivers like Jan Magnussen, Stephen South, Mark Blundell & of course Philippe Alliott.

What I read is that Brundle and Alliott did like a shootout. Jean Pierre Jabouille (Pug boss) who was Alliott's mate decided to put a bale of hay on the Magny Cours track where the shootout took place on Brundle's lap, forcing the Brit to back off and therefore recording a slower lap, as seen on the telemetr

The bale was moved for Alliott, and Jabouille tried to prove a point to Ron Dennis (I presume) that his compatriot was faster, and he should get the drive.

Great story David AGS. I wonder if the fact that Brundle got the drive over (Pug boss's mate) Alliott, caused the supposed animosity that Brundle later felt Peugeot had towards him. As I stated earlier IIRC in Martin Brundle's book, 'Working the Wheel' he explained how whenever his Peugeot engine used to blow up in his 1994 Mclaren. It was usually the same fault, something about a flywheel. Anyway IIRC he felt the Peugeot engineers didn't always listen to him & even blamed him from the failures. Interesting thought.

Maybe they made the engine blow up on purpose to limit Brundle's progress?

[tzerof1]

Great story David AGS. I wonder if the fact that Brundle got the drive over (Pug boss's mate) Alliott, caused the supposed animosity that Brundle later felt Peugeot had towards him. As I stated earlier IIRC in Martin Brundle's book, 'Working the Wheel' he explained how whenever his Peugeot engine used to blow up in his 1994 Mclaren. It was usually the same fault, something about a flywheel. Anyway IIRC he felt the Peugeot engineers didn't always listen to him & even blamed him from the failures. Interesting thought.

Maybe they made the engine blow up on purpose to limit Brundle's progress?

So, based on that testimony, could it be possible that Martin Brundle's engine exploding at the start of the Silverstone 1994 wasn't as much of a random occurrence as one might be led to believe? Think about it. British car, British driver, and it's the home race for both. And you're pissed that the British man is driving the car instead of your Frenchman because the smart engineers saw he gained that unfair advantage you may or may not have given him at that test at Paul Ricard. So why not do a bit of dodgy mechanic work, and get some measure of vengeance against both?

Or, as suggested by pasta_maldonado, have a season long campaign against him.

Though according to formula1.com's archive, Brundle had only three engine related retirements, to Hakkinen's four that season. And both cars retired at the French GP from engine failures. So who knows?

[ibsey]

So, based on that testimony, could it be possible that Martin Brundle's engine exploding at the start of the Silverstone 1994 wasn't as much of a random occurrence as one might be led to believe? Think about it. British car, British driver, and it's the home race for both. And you're pissed that the British man is driving the car instead of your Frenchman because the smart engineers saw he gained that unfair advantage you may or may not have given him at that test at Paul Ricard. So why not do a bit of dodgy mechanic work, and get some measure of vengeance against both?

Or, as suggested by pasta_maldonado, have a season long campaign against him.

Though according to formula1.com's archive, Brundle had only 3 engine related retirements, to Hakkinen's four that season. And both cars retired at the French GP from engine failures. So who knows?

Rather than deliberately programming Brundle's engine to fail at every race. Perhaps a sabotage method that would have become fairly obvious to Mclaren, Brundle & the Media after a while. Not to mention provide bad publicity for Peugeot.

It is possible that Peugeot might have sabotage Brundle efforts in more subtle ways. Remember it wouldn't be the first time that an engine supplier would disadvantage one of their drivers, by subtle means, on purpose. For instance, there is of course the famous case of Honda apparently disadvantaging both Mansell at Portgual 1987 & Prost at Monza in 1989 by giving them slightly less BHP than their respective teammates.

This may or may not of happened to Brundle. However I for one am a little suprised as to the level difference, that occured between Brundle & Hakkinen in 1994 on the face of it (i.e. without properly checking the all their results in 1994). I do recknoise Hakkinen to be a quicker driver & overall superior to Brundle. I just felt that Hakkinen wasn't quite at his prime in 1994, whereas felt Brundle might have been at his prime that particular year. Also remember that DC & Herbert both got closer to Hakkinen than Brundle appeared to do?

I need to dig out Brundle's book & re-read it again (which I shall do tonight), but I'm fairly certain that Brundle felt the Peugeot engineers weren't as receptive to his feedback as he felt they could/should have been. IIRC the Sliverstone 1994 blow out was according to Brundle's book, a prime example of him telling Peugoet about a potenial problem, them not listening / disregarding it. The engine failing. Then Peugeot blaming Brundle for the failure. However I will quote exactly what was written about it in Brundle's book tommorrow.

On a slightly simliar note, there is a great story I recently read in Autosport about the Brabham team, purposely trying to blow up their BMW engines when testing them in mid 1982. Simply because they wanted to show BMW, the engines were too unrealiable. So Brabham could get out of having to run them for race weekends.

Unfortantely for Brabham, despite their best efforts, IIRC they couldn't blow up enough BMW engines to justify to the German manufacture not to run them for the latter part of 1982.

Now that is what I call a reject worthy story.

[tzerof1]

On a slightly simliar note, there is a great story I recently read in Autosport about the Brabham team, purposely trying to blow up their BMW engines when testing them in mid 1982. Simply because they wanted to show BMW, the engines were too unrealiable. So Brabham could get out of having to run them for race weekends.

Unfortantely for Brabham, despite their best efforts, IIRC they couldn't blow up enough BMW engines to justify to the German manufacture not to run them for the latter part of 1982.

Now that is what I call a reject worthy story.

So, essentially, at Hockenheim 82', Nelson Piquet could have been mad at Eliseo Salazar for entirely different reasons than meets the eye? Reports have it that his BMW engine was near failure. Plus the team was still being run by Bernie Ecclestone at the time, so something like this is not entirely surprising!

[ibsey]

Ok here's what Brundle has to say, in his book, on the 1994 Peugeot engine;

Interlagos;

"During the 1994 Brazilian GP, I was involved in a serious crash ...It was the nearest I had ever come to dying.

It was my first race for Mclaren and I would quickly come to learn that the Peugeot engine had a habit of shedding it flywheel with dramatic results. The loss of the Flywheel would have been nothing more than a frustrating failure had it simply dropped off the back of the engine. But it didn't stop at that. With the flywheelrevolving at around 14,000 revolutions per minute - or 230 per second - the forces involved would take it through the bottom of the transmission casing and onto the race track, where it would instantly bounce back and cause all sorts of mayhem beneath the car. Its favourite trick was to go through the gearbox and set fire to the oil."

(Brundle then goes on to explain that the flywheel came off just as he accelarated out of turn 3, which then led to his almighty accident.)


Sliverstone;

"Most my vivid memory of starting a race at Sliverstone was when I appeared to be attempting to BBQ half the grip. That was in 1994 with the famous Peugeot engine that caused so much grief at Interlagos & everywhere else by trying to consume itself at awkward moments..."

(Brundle then goes on to explain how the engine was sounding sick on the formation lap - not for the 1st time that year - & how he though about going into the pits, but there seemed little point , so he took his place on the grid with the intention of giving the engine a rev in the hope of clearing the trouble. He then describes the failure in some detail, before the describing how broken-hearted & absolutely distraught he was that this should happen at his home event & in which he had hoped to do well)

"...But the trouble didn't end there. Jean-Pierre Jabouille, a former F1 driver who had become the head of Peugeot Sport, was keen to cover his company's backside. He was also desperate to get his mate Phillippe Alliot - our test driver - in the car for a race. Jabouille was looking for any excuse. After the race, they got the Mclaren back to the pits, added some oil and it fired up. The engine was fine. Peugeot then issued a press release to the effect that I should have carried on. They conveniently forgot to mention that the fire had melted the car's rear suspension, undertray & rear wing, that the engine had used 8 of its 14 litres of oil and was never going to last.

I was then blamed for using the wrong revs on the start line even though the problem was evident on the warm up lap. It turned out that I was holding the revs in a zone in which the harmonics made the piston rings leak (then Brundle goes into detail on this)...

...It later transpired that Peugeot, in order to reduce intenal friction, had gone from 3 piston rings to 2. No one had told me about the crucial rev band. Worse still, Mclaren, because of internal politics chose to remain silent about Peugeot's one-eyed account. If I was bitterly disappointed before , I was absoltely livid now."

Hungary;

"But when it come to heartbreak at the Hungaroring, the last lap of 1994 was the most painful for me. I was with Mclaren, and Hakkinen, who was my team-mate, had been banned for causing a start-line accident at Hockenhiem. Mika had been the golden boy of the team but, in Hungary , I was no. 1. And, boy, was I enjoying it. Apart from loving the track, I was revelling in the new found responsibility and the fact that the team were focused on me instead of Hakkinen. I was absolutely flying and the feeling of well being was increased by seeing my temporary team-mate, Philippe Alliot, really struggle. As i'd discovered at Sliverstone in 1994, Mclaren's engine partner, Peugeot , had been desperate to get the Frenchman a race drive. This was their chance. And he was absoltely nowhere, qualifying 14th, eight places behind me."

Though according to formula1.com's archive, Brundle had only three engine related retirements, to Hakkinen's four that season. And both cars retired at the French GP from engine failures. So who knows?

From my research I've counted Brundle as having 6 total engine failures during actual races that season. Brazil (just before his accident) / Pacific / France / Sliverstone / Germany & Europe. In addition to this, there were also some races like Monaco, where although Brundle finished the race in 2nd position. Martin describes in his book, how the engine had got rid of most of its oil & water. So for the last 10 laps he never understood how it kept going?

Furthermore I have been looking a bit more into the difference in terms of performance between Hakkinen & Brundle during 1994. Interestingly over the course of their 15 races together Hakkinen outqualified Brundle by an average of 4.73 places per race. Whereas in 1992, when Brundle was team-mates to M Schumi, over the course of the 1992 season, M Schumi outqualified Brundle by an average of 2.69 places per race. Which is almost half the average amout that Hakkinen managed to outqualify Brundle by in 1994. Even allowing for the view that Hakkinen was a slightly better qualifier than M Schumi. To me, this statistic does seem to suggest, that for whatever reason, Brundle was not performing as well in 1994 as he had done in 1992. As I can't see how, even the most ardent Hakkinen fan would argue that Mika was almost twice the qualifer M Schumi was.

What’s more that difference in qualifying performance between Hakkinen & Brundle in 1994, is akin to what one would expect between a clear no.1 driver & clear no. 2 driver. Certainly it is rare to see that kind of performance between two equal teammates. To my knowlegde Mclaren, offically at least, considered both of their drivers equal no.1 in 1994. Therefore would have given them both 'equal' equipment, as that has always been their policy (until a championship situation ditates otherwise). Even if Mclaren did favor Hakkinen, I can't believe that driver 'favourism' would have played a significant part in these particular stats. Since Brundle & his relationship with the 'M Schumi factor' at Benetton was a broadly simliar situation to dealing with 'the Golden boy' (aka Hakkinen) at Mclaren, anyway.

Whats more interesting is that I have briefly looked over the qualifying battles between Herbert & Hakkinen in 1992. As well as the qualifying battles between Coulthard & Hakkinen in 1996. On the face of things (i.e. without having analysed them in detail like above), they all appear to be a fairly even contest. Maybe with Hakkinen having a slight edge, but I can't see it being anymore than an average of 1 place per race with Herbert, or 2 places per race with Coulthard.

Given these are teammates to Hakkinen whom I personally would consider to be of a simliar ability level to that of Brundle's in 1994. Therefore I would have expected Brundle's qualifying performances in comparison with Hakkinen, to have been broadly around this mark. Certainly no high than say being outqualified by Hakkinen by an average of 3.5 places per race. Note, I've used qualifying performances as a performance measure because that tends to be a true test of 'pure' speed. Where as race results can often be ditated by other factors like, poorer pitstops / strategy / unreliability / getting stuck in traffic etc.

All of this anaylsis, therefore begs the question just why was Brundle being so comprehensively out qualified by Hakkinen. Might there have been an element of Peugeot sabotaging (in some shape or form) Brundle's performances in 1994?

Whislt, in the absence of hard facts on the matter, one can only speculate. I do tend to think that perhaps there would have been at the very least some 'negative feelings' between Peugeot & Brundle. Particularly in the aftermath of Sliverstone 1994. Perhaps this may have amounted to subtle ‘indirect sabotage’. Things like Hakkinen always getting the new, fresher engines & given greater technical support even by the Peugeot engineers. In addition to greater support by the Mclaren engineers. Therefore, perhaps Brundle was considered an afterthought. So it is possible that Brundle received even worse treatment from Peugeot than he might have done, for instance from Ford in 1992. Despite being given, officially at least, the same equal no. 1 status within in the team in both cases. Perhaps this may have accounted for some of the difference in qualifying performances between Hakkinen & Brundle in 1994.

However, without further evidence I do hesitate to believe that Peugeot would have gone to the extreme lengths of 'directly' sabotaging Brundle engine’s on purpose, to the extent that Honda did with Mansell in 1987 or Prost in 1989. I am certainly not aware of Brundle (or any other involved party) coming forward suggesting ‘direct’ sabotage from Peugoet.

[AndreaModa]

But Brundle then drove the Jordan-Peugeot in '96, so had the ill-feeling subsided by that point?

I find it hard to believe that McLaren, who it seems according to Brundle (from the extracts ibsey has posted) were aware of the disparity between himself and Hakkinen, would simply stand back and allow that sort of situation to develop, especially considering the mid-1990s was arguably the worst spell for McLaren results-wise in F1 since the late 70s, and remains so to this day. I would have thought they'd be pushing for both drivers to achieve as much as possible, and not just blow sunshine up Hakkinen's arse.

Then again, we are talking about Ron Dennis, and he does do some strange things!

[tzerof1]

That's quite interesting, I never knew about his flywheel having come off in Brazil, hence why it was listed as "collision" and also his Pacific retirement was listed as "spun off", so I'd venture to guess that's partly why I missed three of his engine failures . But seriously, thanks for taking the time to dig out Brundle's book and share that. That's some really interesting stuff he said. And you'd think Peugeot would want to do something about its flywheel problem, it's not like it's Brundle's suggesting they design an entirely new engine or something.

[mario]

That's quite interesting, I never knew about his flywheel having come off in Brazil, hence why it was listed as "collision" and also his Pacific retirement was listed as "spun off", so I'd venture to guess that's partly why I missed three of his engine failures . But seriously, thanks for taking the time to dig out Brundle's book and share that. That's some really interesting stuff he said. And you'd think Peugeot would want to do something about it's flywheel problem, it's not like it's Brundle's suggesting they design an entirely new engine or something.

The engine failure in Brazil was one reason why Brundle said that he thought that Irvine had been judged a little harshly for his part in their famous crash in the 1994 Brazilian GP - his engine failed as Irvine and Verstappen approached him, which meant that the closing speed between himself and the two drivers behind him was much larger than they could have anticipated.

But Brundle then drove the Jordan-Peugeot in '96, so had the ill-feeling subsided by that point?

I find it hard to believe that McLaren, who it seems according to Brundle (from the extracts ibsey has posted) were aware of the disparity between himself and Hakkinen, would simply stand back and allow that sort of situation to develop, especially considering the mid-1990s was arguably the worst spell for McLaren results-wise in F1 since the late 70s, and remains so to this day. I would have thought they'd be pushing for both drivers to achieve as much as possible, and not just blow sunshine up Hakkinen's arse.

Then again, we are talking about Ron Dennis, and he does do some strange things!

It is worth noting that Jabouille was sacked in 1995 as the senior management at Peugeot held him responsible for the failings of their engine program. If there was animosity between Peugeot and Brundle, Alliot's retirement from racing and Jabouille's departure from Peugeot would have removed a major source of animosity between the two sides.

[ibsey]

It is worth noting that Jabouille was sacked in 1995 as the senior management at Peugeot held him responsible for the failings of their engine program. If there was animosity between Peugeot and Brundle, Alliot's retirement from racing and Jabouille's departure from Peugeot would have removed a major source of animosity between the two sides.

Just to add to this very valid point. I suspect that if the had been animosity between Peugeot & Brundle in 1994. Then it probably wouldn't have been 'personal'. It was simply that Jabouille & Peugeot were always going to hate who-ever took over the 2nd Mclaren drive, from Alliot. And that just happened to be Brundle. So from Peugoet's point of view he was seen as the bad guy for this reason alone (i.e. they didn't particularly hate Brundle for any other reason). Therefore I doubt the animosity would have contiuned into 1996.

Also remember that Prost & Renualt had a massive falling out after 1983, after Prost apparently got a little 'too friendly' with one of the wives of the management at Renualt. Yet they still got back together 10 years later. Time heals all wounds, as I believe the saying goes.

[BlindCaveSalamander]

Also remember that Prost & Renualt had a massive falling out after 1983, after Prost apparently got a little 'too friendly' with one of the wives of the management at Renualt. Yet they still got back together 10 years later. Time heals all wounds, as I believe the saying goes.

Really? I though Prost was just pissed off at Renault resting on their laurels, easing off development, and thus costing him the title to Piquet.

[ibsey]

Also remember that Prost & Renualt had a massive falling out after 1983, after Prost apparently got a little 'too friendly' with one of the wives of the management at Renualt. Yet they still got back together 10 years later. Time heals all wounds, as I believe the saying goes.

Really? I though Prost was just pissed off at Renault resting on their laurels, easing off development, and thus costing him the title to Piquet.

No, apparently there was even more to it than that. I would highly recommend reading this link for further details into the affair....

http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?s ... prost+1983


To say it makes interesting reading would be a masterpiece of understatement. Also, now everytime I watch Prost crashing into Piquet at Zandvort 1983, I can't help but think what a 'naughty boy' Prost was being just before that race.