|
|
Post by charleselan on Dec 12, 2017 22:57:09 GMT
JC, thanks for posting that picture although I feel really sad looking at it. Here Didier walks back to his own car with both his own and Gilles's helmet. Years ago I had an interesting conversation online with a Belgian enthusiast who was also there in 1982. He was, just like me on the paddock roof and witnessed the same moment when Didier came in with Gilles's helmet. Strangely enough this seems not to be recorded on film, at least not to our knowledge back then. I wish I had photographed it myself but I made 24 photos that morning so no more pictures left. It is photographed in my memory though. René, It is firmly in your memory bank and that is the most important thing. It also enables you to recount the tale to those like us here which is priceless. Everyone at some time or other wishes they had been able to capture a special moment with the camera and for some reason or other had not, even the Pro's. JC |
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Dec 13, 2017 0:05:09 GMT
JC, thanks for posting that picture although I feel really sad looking at it. Here Didier walks back to his own car with both his own and Gilles's helmet. Years ago I had an interesting conversation online with a Belgian enthusiast who was also there in 1982. He was, just like me on the paddock roof and witnessed the same moment when Didier came in with Gilles's helmet. Strangely enough this seems not to be recorded on film, at least not to our knowledge back then. I wish I had photographed it myself but I made 24 photos that morning so no more pictures left. It is photographed in my memory though. René, It is firmly in your memory bank and that is the most important thing. It also enables you to recount the tale to those like us here which is priceless. Everyone at some time or other wishes they had been able to capture a special moment with the camera and for some reason or other had not, even the Pro's. JC Well said, John Charles, with great understanding of what's possible and what's most important. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2017 17:08:55 GMT
What an outstanding thread this is. Just read it all through. Some great points if discussion and sensible points of view.
As some of you may remember, I already posted on MS a couple of years back that I thought the theory that made Pironi morally guilty of Gilles' accident as unsustainable at any level. I appreciate if it is people of the public like myself - ourselves - to have that opinion out of what is reported on the weekly or monthly magazine available at the time, but I always thought unforgivable for people who would call themselves as "journalists", like Roebuck. If he was a friend of Villeneuve, fair enough, he should have been honest enough to say he couldn't report objectively on the matter and keep quiet, not blowing petrol on the fire that was raging.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2017 21:52:50 GMT
The unsavoury short exchange on MS the other day reminds me of another "villain", at least for some members of the British press.
Carlos Reutemann
There are journalists - Roebuck is one, always him for some reason - who have waxed lyrical about Carlos's alleged psychological frailties. I always found baffling the ridiculous, or lack of, explanation reported for what happened at Las Vegas in 1981. Until this day from what I gather from the preview on Hughes' book, they have only relied on Head and Williams' word. Of course, they are all British (English), have their phone numbers saved on their mobiles, it doesn't take much trouble to produce another half page of platitudes. Nobody asked Reutemann or has taken the step to call him in Buenos Aires or Santa Fe and have his side of the story, which seems like too much trouble. Not counting the fact he seems to be the kind of man who doesn't like to be seen as someone to give explanations which could be interpreted as convenient excuses.
1981. Starting from the infamous Brazilian GP, the guy had to fight all through the year against a teammate world champion who had the full support of the team and number one status by contract. Most important, he went against the grain of his own team all though that year. He had to fight Head every step of the way, as he was imposing him this or that technical option for this or that reason. Carlos, for example, favoured a particular chassis number, that he was able to exploit to the best, while Head had always a different opinion and tried to impose it to the driver at every race, including at Las Vegas where Carlos had to switch to a different chassis by Head’s choice, and notwithstanding he was still the quickest all through Friday and Saturday and duly put it on pole. They even switched tire provider in the middle of the season, when Reutemann was quite ahead in the standings and unsurprisingly in the subsequent second half of the season he couldn't get the same performance from his car. Roebuck even took the mickey out of Carlos when he interviewed him at mid-season (Silverstone, IIRC), saying that despite leading the championship Carlos was doubtful he could succeed at the end. It is evident the driver knew very well what struggle he had to put up to be in that position, knew the changes they had lined up for him (the tires!! the basic building blocks of any successful race car), that he could only be a realist about what the rest of the season had in store for his bid to win the championship.
I always thought that, on the contrary, he had to have some out of the ordinary fortitude of character to put himself into contention until the very last race, under the circumstances he had to operate all through the year.
He said after that race - and in his autobiography, in Spanish - that he had issues with the dog rings of the gear, he couldn't select a number of gears (can't recall, I can check, but the critical ones in a tobogan like Caesar's Palace parking lot track). The press – the British press – went for Head’s explanation that there were no issues with the gearbox, that as they tried to operate it back in the factory it worked just fine. Looking from outside, it seems it was a case similar to Giacomelli’s engine at the Glen 1980, an issue arising in the heat of the competition, while when the mechanics went to collect the car on the circuit, the engine switched on at the first attempt without a problem. They – Williams, and the British press following Williams - never gave Reutemann the benefit of doubt. And for what reason would he be lying? He never took excuses for having been beaten by Lauda, for example, or anything else I could recall; he never came across as a complainer.
Don’t get me wrong, psychology is key in sport, but it seems to me that Reutemann in 1981 had no psychological issues whatsoever, on the contrary he had the resolve to push all the way in difficult circumstances and trying to lessen his achievement is plainly wrong and makes to his reputation an unfair disservice. To be successful in this sport entails very often to be at the right place at the right time, and he never had those two factors fully aligned. He was at home in Brabham – the only place where he felt that way - but the car was never the one beat. At Ferrari, in 1977 the car wasn’t the best of the lot, but his teammate Lauda had a point to prove and was capable to squeeze a championship through determination and metier. In 1978, Lotus was the car to have. In 1979, Lotus wasn’t the car to have. In 1980, he was treated as a washed up driver, much like Regazzoni the previous year. Let’s give Caesar what belongs to Caesar.
Disclaimer: I have never been Carlos’ fan - but can recognize a great driver when I see one.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Dec 17, 2017 22:43:59 GMT
the mercurial, intelligent and sophisticated gentleman called Carlos, I always liked him, and totally agree with your point Lucio he was at his happiest at Brabham and had he stayed? well a possible WDC would have been his for the taking and I for one thought he jolly well deserved one-
I always felt at Williams he saw the bigger picture so to speak, and his world was not confined to F1 and its narrow mindlessness, as he proved when he retired, which didn't suit the more 'down-to-earth attitude of Williams engineering, who despite my fondness for them - weren't exactly what you might call 'people-persons' or as Sir Frank, whom I met once, said, "they are just employees"
going back to the original heading, and looking at Nigel's flaws, is Mr Roebuck a villain?
|
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Dec 17, 2017 23:10:23 GMT
I can find nothing to disagree with in your post here Lucio; always thought the same myself. As I have stated many times, probably to the point of tedium I am not a lover of Williams Engineering man management skills, or more to the point the lack of! I would say due to these factors they have lost three world championships, and more often than not a resultant engine partnership. I have also read from none English sources that Carlos had problems with the car in Las Vegas and his protestations to the team were unsupported. Also I might add that if Alan Jones was as good as he keeps telling people he was then he would not have needed that exclusive No. 1 status within the team. His loyalty to the team was also illustrated after Vegas when he up and retired. As I have stated earlier Roebuck was never to my taste, not only for the reasons I mentioned, but also he wasn't that fine a scribe of the English language. Typically of one of that ilk he would get a buzz word (the one that comes to mind is "apposite" which he bandied about for years) and use it to infinitum; so much so that the impressionable young scribes in the publication would follow suit, I could name, names  . I agree with Chris and yourself, Brabham was the place for him but they were hampered by a serious lack of funds for much of the time, which is maybe why Bernie became such a megalomaniac in later years! Great Post. |
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Dec 18, 2017 1:32:45 GMT
To someone familiar with the American southwest, Nigel Roebuck's most annoying gaffe is his constant referral to chaparral as a fast running flightless bird, a misnomer derived from a rural nickname given to the bird in parts of Texas, including Midland, where Jim Hall and Hap Sharp set up shop.
Chaparral is a shrub found in the southwestern United States and parts of Mexico, in areas with wet but mild winters and hot and dry summers. The bird is the Greater Roadrunner and lives among the chaparral. There is debate whether its large rump wing creates sufficient downforce to prevent flight. Although a fine symbol for a fast sports racer, the bird's name is boring while the shrub sounds beautiful.
It's understandable that the very fast and successful cars designed and built by Jim Hall (with the assistance of General Motors) should be named after a fast and successful bird rather than a normally stationary desert shrub, which seldom even travels with the wind as tumbleweed does.
Nigel Roebuck is a fine writer, pompous at times, who readily mistakes sentiment for reason and shrubs for birds. Regardless, Chaparral is a beautiful name for a car, whatever its organic inspiration.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Dec 18, 2017 8:37:05 GMT
I always thought Nigel the better when he had someone who he looked up to, like Jenks for instance, and Carl, I think your comment is spot on, but in recent years my appreciation for him has diminished a great deal, however in saying that his recent articles have been better so,
which does actually lead me to think, which modern journalists am I enjoying? Mark Hughes is incredibly knowledgeable and has a good way of explaining things but although I like the guy I cannot say his writing draws me in as others do , mmm contemplation time, whose writing do I like...
|
|
|
|
Post by René on Dec 18, 2017 10:10:39 GMT
@ Lucio: Great post about Carlos Reutemann. A magnificent driver who was unlucky at times with chosing teams, although the choice at the moment seemed really good and sensible. In 1980/81 he was in the right team car wise but he was never fully backed by the team. He should have been WDC in 1981.
As for Nigel Roebuck, I have enjoyed many of is his writings. I started to buy Autosport at the local bookstore somewhere in the 80's and I always looked forward to reading Nigel's columns. But after a while he became a bit repetitive, like an old record. And his adoration for certain drivers (Gilles, Amon) became a bit over the top and one sided, even if they were also my favourite drivers. And, as mentioned in this thread, his one sided view on the 1982 drama was not my view.
I don't mind the fact he is not as technically knowledgeable as some other writers are. Describing the human factor and the atmosphere of a certain time is also interesting. But again, his biased views on certain events and drivers is often too present in his writing.
|
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Dec 18, 2017 11:46:53 GMT
@ Lucio: Great post about Carlos Reutemann. A magnificent driver who was unlucky at times with chosing teams, although the choice at the moment seemed really good and sensible. In 1980/81 he was in the right team car wise but he was never fully backed by the team. He should have been WDC in 1981. As for Nigel Roebuck, I have enjoyed many of is his writings. I started to buy Autosport at the local bookstore somewhere in the 80's and I always looked forward to reading Nigel's columns. But after a while he became a bit repetitive, like an old record. And his adoration for certain drivers (Gilles, Amon) became a bit over the top and one sided, even if they were also my favourite drivers. And, as mentioned in this thread, his one sided view on the 1982 drama was not my view. I don't mind the fact he is not as technically knowledgeable as some other writers are. Describing the human factor and the atmosphere of a certain time is also interesting. But again, his biased views on certain events and drivers is often too present in his writing. René, I totally agree about Carlos, he was a class driver of the highest quality and 1981 should have been his year. With regard to Nigel Roebuck, I accept the views that you and Chris put forward, and i suppose that in the distant past I also read with some pleasure his reports in Autosport. However for this reader he could not possibly follow, or live up to, DSJ and Pete Lyons as they were head and shoulders better than him in all respects. I had many a disagreement with Jenks (up in my own head) but still held him in such esteem. Everyone has a different perspective on things in life and that is what makes us human. Jenks was a different generation to me and the same as my own father, and they had a very different take on evens and situations to that of my age group; and I suppose the same goes for myself and a younger group than mine. Chris asks about ones views on Mark Hughes. Well my own are divided I suppose. I did not take to his reporting back in his days at Autosport, and found his "Top 100 Grand Prix Drivers" to be way off point. However I must say that his recent race reportage for MS is extremely good, considering what he has to work with. He also impresses me as a person with his interaction with commenters on the MS site, and he certainly has far more tolerance than I would have in dealing with some. I am none too interested in his Race Retro books sadly as i feel that a modern slant on events back in 1970 & 1980 are inappropriate. I lived through those times and had all of the material I could obtain at the time and that is how I like to look at history, as it was at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Dec 18, 2017 12:34:07 GMT
Excellent post Lucio and it really got me thinking 🤔
What is my opinion of Reutemann.......I like him a lot as a driver, though my views are mostly retrospective, formed from what I’ve read over the years and, I must admit, I have held the view that he was perhaps a little fragile, but from what you esteemed gentleman are saying here I should probably look a little deeper.
Journalists of the time have their own biases of course and one must be careful when forming opinions based on others musings....there are always two sides to a story, an old cliche but how very true; but this of course works both ways and sometimes it’s human nature to accept at face value something that fits your own view of the world.
The truth is very rarely concrete except to the parties concerned.
I think Carlos was one of the real stand out characters of F1 and he has that touch of magic about him, never a champion but really should have been. Championships are not the sole measure of greatness anyway and particularly in our sport where many external factors are at play.
I also like the fact that he obviously had much more about him than merely being able to drive stupendously fast and was, indeed, perhaps more cerebral than most.
I’m definitely in the Carlos fan club and it’s great to see so much affection for him here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Dec 18, 2017 12:44:30 GMT
Regarding journalists, I have always enjoyed reading Roebuck though I too find his bias wearisome at times. His over the top adulation of Fernando grew irritating long ago.
Mark Hughes is good but I don’t find myself rushing to read his reports all the time, but then I find reading race reports of an event I just watched boring in the extreme. I am, however, enjoying retro 70 but then I don’t have the first hand knowledge to compare it to.
As a aside, the sycophantic gushing over his every word on the MS forum makes my toes curl but that’s hardly his fault.
Jerks was the Daddy for me, I’d happily settle down with a cup of tea to read his old shopping lists....
|
|
|
|
Post by robmarsh on Dec 18, 2017 14:09:05 GMT
Some excellent comments here once again. this is turning out to be a good thread. A couple of points on Carlos. I always liked him as a driver and was sorry he didn't win at least one world championship he deserved it. He certainly drove well in 1978 and 1980 and in 1979 played the game for Williams and Jones-for scant reward as 1980 proved. I still remember Jenks waxing lyrical when he put the Brabham BT34 on pole in Argentina in 1972 in his first GP. I think Alan Jones is a legend in his own mind and having read his latest book am even more convinced. He is like a lot of aussies, tough until you give it back. Perhaps Carlos was too much of a gentleman for Williams and Jones. I also wonder how much of that Las Vegas GP and Carlos state of mind had to do with what happened in the Falklands some six months later. He was very well connected politically in Argentina and he may have heard something that he knew would put him in an invidious position.
With regard to Roebuck I too enjoyed his writing up to a point but eventually got peed off with the way he just used to cut and paste snippets from previous articles. In fact I mentioned it on a MotorSport Magazine survey and it seemed to stop for a while. I agree with Charles that he is not the same as Jenks or Lyons and I can't say I miss him. There must be a reason his books have such low second hand value.
As for Lucio's comment on his irresponsible reporting on Villeneuve/Pironi I agree with Lucio. As I mentioned earlier I am currently reading a book about Pironi and it puts a different light on the matter. Villeneuve was more pissed off with Ferrari management than Pironi. Alan de La Plante also says that at Zolder, Villeneuve, outside of the Ferrari garage, was his usual chirpy self. He had just brought a new helicopter and was enthusing about that. Villeneuve had been invited to Pironi's wedding the previous month but chose not to go because he and his wife were having difficulties and formal events were not his scene. Villeneuve's death was caused by his utmost belief in himself leading to driver error. Pironi was not the cause of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Dec 18, 2017 15:06:39 GMT
To someone familiar with the American southwest, Nigel Roebuck's most annoying gaffe is his constant referral to chaparral as a fast running flightless bird, a misnomer derived from a rural nickname given to the bird in parts of Texas, including Midland, where Jim Hall and Hap Sharp set up shop. Chaparral is a shrub found in the southwestern United States and parts of Mexico, in areas with wet but mild winters and hot and dry summers. The bird is the Greater Roadrunner and lives among the chaparral. There is debate whether its large rump wing creates sufficient downforce to prevent flight. Although a fine symbol for a fast sports racer, the bird's name is boring while the shrub sounds beautiful. It's understandable that the very fast and successful cars designed and built by Jim Hall (with the assistance of General Motors) should be named after a fast and successful bird rather than a normally stationary desert shrub, which seldom even travels with the wind as tumbleweed does. Nigel Roebuck is a fine writer, pompous at times, who readily mistakes sentiment for reason and shrubs for birds. Regardless, Chaparral is a beautiful name for a car, whatever its organic inspiration. Carl, That answers a lot of questions with regard to Chaparral and Road Runner, I suppose for the uninitiated an easy mistake to make. I have often wondered why the TV Western Series "High Chaparral" would be named after a bird. It is currently getting an airing on one of the multitude of re-run stations on Free to Air TV in the UK, hence fresh in my mind. JC |
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Dec 18, 2017 17:15:04 GMT
Good point regarding the Falklands thing Rob 👍
For someone as astute as Carlos this could well have been playing on his mind.......it certainly did on mine as a young lad, in my naivety I thought we were all going to fry in a nuclear war......
|
|
.
