Nigel Roebuck

[chrisb]

love him, loathe him he is somewhat difficult to ignore, maybe he went on a bit about Teflonso or Gilles but as a journalist I thoroughly enjoyed his writing and noted having just read his latest 5th Column that he has quietly announced this is his last - after 38 years writing his words of insight, wisdom, opinion, and friendships his nib is being rested, good on you Nigel, hope you are well, I will miss you and can only say thank you and wish you the very best. 

On a personal level I corresponded with Nigel several times, especially in his 1st stint at Autosport, sadly I cannot recollect all our communication except one which was related to ' the greatest of all time' where he put Stirling as his favoured choice, what I liked about those days is that you could disagree without being offensive or rude and remember having this brief dialogue with Nigel funny enough saying that I didn't agree and he wrote this lovely reply which must have taken some considerable time singing the virtues of Jimmy but wouldn't change his mind about Stirling. 

I do think he was shocked at the attitude of some of the 'keyboard warriors' on Motor Sport and their downright hostility and aggression to some of his articles, something I can resonate with, and that with the other problems at our beloved MS prompted the departure, I for one would welcome him back at MS and think that he and MH would make a formidable team. 

thank you Nigel, 

[charleselan]

Many thanks for bringing this to our attention Chris; one can but surmise as to what has brought this about. Could be that the now very large Motorsport.com organisation that owns Autosport feels that the younger set are preferential. However it could be that Nigel isn't too enamoured at having to work with the "Whipper Snappers" that populate most of the motor sport media these days.

I am one of those in the category who are not his greatest of fans, but he has written some good pieces over the years and one cannot dismiss his enthusiasm for the sport. Nigel has also been with us for many a year, like an institution, so hope he is well and just going to enjoy retirement. or whatever else he may be doing.

[Carl]

I always enjoyed reading Nigel Roebuck, despite his obvious emotional attachments which he seemed to be trying to convince readers to share. Once past all of that, he's a fine writer with great knowledge of the sport and I suspect he'll still be around now and then.

[Deleted]

A terrific bloke, fantastic story teller with a sharp sense of humour. He will be missed.

[René]

Yes I also enjoyed reading Roebuck. He could be a bit repititional with his anecdotes about Amon and Villeneuve and his admiration for Fernando but on the other hand, that also defined his style which was very charming and human. An iconic motorsport journalist.

[charleselan]

I have noticed that we have revisited (yet again) the Roebuck story of Didier Pironi on the "motorsport.com" and  the
"Autosport" web pages, both are now owned by I believe the Zak Brown organisation. Both versions are behind a paywall so I am not inclined to read further, as if it will be any different from previous renditions of Roebuck's slant. The latest article is titled "The Tragedy of Ferrari's Most Unpopular Star", somewhat grotesque even by definition.

Mr Roebuck might believe, and also try to convince others, that Pironi was unpopular but some would have a different view. As we have discussed previously I seriously believe that the bad feelings generated towards Didier would not have developed without the aid of Roebuck's original unsolicited reportage that made no effort to get Pironi's side of things. Tragically neither Gilles or Didier are alive today, and I just wonder what they would have to say now both would be like myself in the latter half of their 60's.

[chrisb]

I did notice it too JC but haven't read it, wonder why it was resubmitted, there is also an article on the 156 sharknose which again I haven't read, in truth these days I tend not to follow Autosport so much but Crash which I think seems to have a more balanced approach, I still like NR but as we said before, like Jenks he does have his likes and dislkes and isn't afraid to say them

[charleselan]

I really think that DSJ was in a different league Chris and he had his views which our generation and later disagreed with at times. I will however say that it was very much a generational thing, something I have alluded to in previous comments. Jenks' values and ideology was based on a much earlier time and if one were to be honest it isn't any different from those of us who hark back to previous eras in preference to what we have now. I am not saying that we agree with Jenks now, but our current views on what we believe to be better times (say the 1960/70's) are not in keeping with young F1 fans of today think.

I can see how Jenks could believe that the new circuits that came into being in the 1970's like Nivelles; Jarama and Zolder were a complete anathema to those he had seen like the great road courses of the 1960's and Pre-WW11.

He like Nigel Roebuck had his favourite drivers and was completely intransigent in his appraisal. The one thing that doesn't sit easily with me regarding Roebuck and his writings of Didier Pironi is the hypocrisy of the man who on the other hand idolises Teflonso but never ever touches on the fact that he has been involved in some of the most distasteful acts within the sport.

From what I know and have read about Didier it would appear that he was a much finer man in every respect, yet Roebuck continues this quest to undermine the memory of a great and tragic race driver.

[robmarsh]

I always respected Jenks even if I did not always agree with him which was very seldom by the way and mainly regarding his views towards JYS and his safety campaign.

I did enjoy Roebuck for a long time and put him third behind DSJ and Pete Lyons for grand prix reporting at the time. However, I started to get exceedingly irritated when it became very apparent to me that he had found the cut and paste buttons on his computer and he used them  with abandon to the extent that I don't believe he thought as much about his articles as he used to. I don't like paying for laziness and said as much to MotorSport magazine in a survey some years ago. I named NR in this so I assume he knows my views since he should have been privy to the comments.

My first thought this morning when I read the comments was that he had cut and pasted his way to commenting on something that does not need to be commented on any further. It was not the the whole truth and just heaps pain where it does not need to be.

I have not read his latest article and will not seek it out. What happened all those years ago happened and was probably more down to miscommunication on behalf of Ferrari than dastardly behavior on the part of Pironi who was a great driver. He did not cause GV to hit the March, just like Schumacher was not responsible for what happened to Senna.

Three of the greatest drivers of all time probably died because of their incredible ability. Jim Clark because he was so talented he probably drove around the problem of the deflating tyre without thinking. Remember at the Italian GP the previous year, Brabham had to make a rather dodgy manoeuvre to telegraph to Clark that his rear tyre was deflating. If he could see it then you must wonder what effect it had on the Lotus.

Sadly I think GV and Senna had so much faith in their natural ability that they believed they could get out of any situation and they crashed pushing harder than they needed to.

In any case I also feel that there was no need for Roebuck to bring the Pironi/Villeneuve Imola incident up again. It is in poor taste and disrespectful to the memories of both men and their families.

[chrisb]

Chaps, couldn't agree more, Jenks was the most revered and respected motor racing journalist and certainly the one I enjoyed the most, I did totally disagree with him around safety, as I have said so many deaths were just totally unnecessary and easily preventable, and that is what really upsets me, but for accuracy or just gaining a real oversight as to what actually goes on at a motor race Jenks has had no one near him and his style was magnificent. I know Pete Lyons is also highly respected and I do think Nigel who was as big a fan of Jenks as we are, was excellent, but as you say Rob, a lot of recent years has been almost a phone in report, I think Nigel became disillusioned with the responses he got on the toxic MS forum, and that with his illness and probably a lack of bonding? with modern motor racing has caused these articles to re-surface, Like you I've not read the article again although did note on utub that there is a piece about toxic team mates that features Gilles and Didier. Maybe it is more about Nigel's ongoing lament for his friends death I don't know, but it does seem a bit of a sad end to someone i have always enjoyed reading. 

You know a bit like the drivers and teams from earlier era's so I believe is my taste in journalists, Alan Henry, Eoin Young, Jabby, so many I realy enjoyed from bygone times and makes me wonder who do I revere now? Mark Hughes is an astonishing journalist and together with Max, who has just done a wonderful piece on MotoE are two I thoroughly enjoy, but who else of the modern journalists do I even know? but David Tremayne, Richard Williams have been around for a time - so not sure. 

[robmarsh]

Hi Chris you mentioned all my favourite scribes in your post. Sadly many have passed on. Mark Hughes is by far the best of the current lot and his race reports remind me a lot of DSJ.

That U TUBE piece on toxic team mates covers more than just GV and Pironi and includes Mansell and Piquet and Senna vs Prost. I found it a bit superficial having read lots of books and articles over the years.

[charleselan]

How these journalist went about their work and  what they brought to us was very different. Jenks was the man that inspired my interest in motor racing (cars) as a child and teenager. His ability to take me to places in Europe that i would never have had the opportunity of visiting was one aspect. In his monthly column "Continental Notes" he would write about his journeys to race meetings in his Porsche 356, and in later years his beloved "E" Type Jaguar. he didn't only do Grand prix he also did all of the European Sport Car Championship meetings. Often his writings about travelling down through France & Italy to Sicily for the Targa Florio would be full of fantastic tales, from the bandits in ht hillsides of the Island to the antics of the drivers as they practiced and raced on this most challenging of road courses.

Jenks would beaver away during a race meeting getting all of the technical detail, very often from his own observations as he patrolled the pit lane and paddock. Some other times he would head off out onto the circuit to see how the drivers were doing and who was impressing at a certain vantage point. That to me is what made him unchallenged in his field, he also wrote beautifully and in plain but perfect English, no fancy phraseology or flowery drivel.

Pete Lyons was for me the other stand out journalist who covered Grand Prix in the 1970's for the then great Autosport weekly magazine and for all too short a tenure. Pete was different to Jenks in that he was more a scene setter, and reported with verve the excitement of what he observed on track, he captured those few years in the mid seventies with style and panache.

To my way of thinking Nigel Roebuck was none of those things, he reported on the Grand Prix races with little technical nuance. His style to me was much more "Fleet Street", and often contained "a source informed me" which left much unanswered. I could never imagine him doing a Jenks in the the Pit Lane or Paddock, but more holed up with a close confidant, be it pet race driver or team member, getting the low down on something or other. His later years were as Rob so eloquently put it, "lazy". Often boringly anecdotal, the same old story over and over again which for a guy who travelled the world covering F1 for around 50 years is a travesty, for surely he must have material that needs airing at least once.

Today there appears to be few motor sport journalists of any repute that i have come across. Mark Hughes is indeed the stand out now and his current reportage is the 21st century equivalent to Jenks work of old. Mark seeks out detail and writes it well. He was far from my favourite in years past, but he has improved like a good wine. I do not always agree with him on some issues, but neither did I with DSJ.

Back in the late 1960's to 1970's I also liked the work of Andy Marriott in "Motoring News" and Chris Witty (where is that book on Formula Two Chris?). also Mike Cotton was really excellent as a Group C Sports car correspondent in the 1980's.

[Jamie]

I've read the said Autosport piece and its Nigel at his most scathing of Pironi to be honest, whilst he acknowledges his driving greatness he, in no uncertain terms, makes his dislike of Pironi's actions at Imola known.

I do feel that Nigel is a little too biased on this point, and I should point out that I am a fan of his writings in general. As a rule Im not so sure I want Motorsport journalists to be completely unbiased, I do like to hear an honest opinion and trust myself and my instincts to sniff out my own truth.....not sure I'm explaining myself very well here but I like to read opinions as opposed to someones idea of the facts, I just hate when people sit on the fence in an attempt to please everybody.

Its for the above reasons that I find Nigel's (extremely strong) opinions on the matter entertaining, it shows passion and a lament for his departed friend that I find endearing......to a point. I don't necessarily agree that Pironi cold heartedly snatched the win from Giles that day, but I do think that he knew it wasn't right.....I think his competitive desire got the better of him and I expect he somewhat regretted it and was embarrassed by it. Thats not to cast him as the Devil of course, and here I think Nigel goes too far, he was no angel for sure, but hardly old nick incarnate.....he certainly didn't cause Giles death. Giles was turning the steering wheel and pushing the pedals that terrible day at Zolder and thats all there is to it, to say otherwise is just a grief induced lash out and I think we can all see it as that.

In much the same way as I enjoy reading Nigel's passionate interpretation of those events, I also enjoyed the recent Pironi biography which cast him as an almost Mother Teressa like figure and was taken with a huge pinch of salt (from me anyway). I didn't take that particular book too seriously as the bias was palpable but thought it hugely entertaining all the same and I learnt some stuff about Pironi that, along with the education I've received from you fine fellas, has changed my opinion of Pironi a little.

I never had him as the absolute villain of the piece anyway, though I certainly would have put him in a 'best F1 villains' list beforehand I think.
I now think of him as a quite wonderful driver, a complex character, somewhat conniving at times, capable of great tenderness and great arrogance.......a flawed genius if you like and a very interesting character in F1 history.

I'd love to have Nigel back at MS to be honest......just don't ask hime to write about 'that' incident 

[René]

Very good post Jamie, couldn't agree more. I really didn't want to discuss the Gilles-Didier drama again so I didn't. But I agree with every word you say, about Didier and about Nigel.

[Jamie]

You're quite right René, we’ve been here before haven’t we 😁
It’s great we’re still talking about those guys though isn’t it.....racing drivers never die when like minded chaps such as ourselves still remember them.