Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 21:37:06 GMT
The Falklands situation developed six months after the GP in Vegas, I really think it had nothing to do with the way that race went for Carlos. I don’t even think the war had anything to do with his retirement. I presume that the previous season, the way it developed, the mental fatigue of the daily battle within his own team took ultimately its toll (I will never get Williams as a team – never, I promise, my bad no doubt).
But going back to October 1981, this guy was ‘on it’ for the whole weekend, despite a change of chassis to one he disliked, he put it in pole and then he doesn’t compete on the Sunday? One of the very best drivers in the world at the time? After have pushed with dogged determination the whole year? Making enemies within his own team for having disregarded team orders (and an alleged contractual clause) early in the season? After all this, he backtracks like a ‘pussy’ at the last, relatively easy, hurdle? (forgive the word, but the concept is clear)
Carlos Reutemann? Gentlemen, are we serious? I don’t believe it for a minute. That Roebuck has kept on banging on this theory ever since shows what a basket case he is and has been, in my view. He should have asked Reutemann, calmly, perhaps after things had settled down a little, but nevertheless to give the opportunity to the driver to explain himself. That is what serious and inquisitive journalists do. I read his weekly columns now on Autosport and it’s a re-hash of old anecdotes, a mixture of pompous self-importance and blatant bias. I can accept an opinion piece, I can’t accept a journalist trying to be “the” news, as if he is this self-appointed journalistic star. They are reporters, not part of the story. Respect for a job well done, no question, but as Charles implies, Hughes’ opinion on, say, Achille Varzi is as good as that of any, particularly of us here who have extensively read and thought things through, if not less.
I have both the first Alan Jones’ autobiography (written by Keith Botsford) and have downloaded the new one just last week. Very good driver, but what a charmless man.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Dec 18, 2017 21:53:09 GMT
I think Patrick Head has since admitted (probably begrudgingly) that they didn’t do all they could for Carlos and he believes that the Falklands thing had nothing to do with it, he just thinks he had his fill and left. (Just been reading some stuff on the archive).
I kind of hope that that was the reason as it would seem to fit with his persona, he had other things to occupy him and decided it was time to go. Good on him.
I totally agree regarding Williams management, a successful team but an odd way of doing things. It seems that every driver since the early 80’s has suffered for ‘not being Alan Jones’.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Dec 18, 2017 22:25:11 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 John Charles, "High Chaparral" was an ambitious Western that never quite succeeded. I remember watching and wanting it to be good because I liked the premise and the cast, but it needed better writing. By far the most effective actor was Henry Darrow, who played the brother of Leif Erickson's young bride. Without quality scripts and production, the others seemed to flounder. Cheers, Carl |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 10:40:28 GMT
I think Patrick Head has since admitted (probably begrudgingly) that they didn’t do all they could for Carlos I totally agree regarding Williams management, a successful team but an odd way of doing things. It seems that every driver since the early 80’s has suffered for ‘not being Alan Jones’. There is this sort of re-thinking, re-considering, don’t know how to call it, from Frank Williams, first, and now it seems Patrick Head too, who was the one who didn’t get Reutemann, about their ways thirty-five plus years ago. I suppose, knowing Williams trademark upper stiff lip (read the poignant Lady Virginia’s memoirs), that is all we will get from them. Fair enough, in a way. What is not acceptable is journalists perpetuating unproven personal “impressions” for facts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 10:59:15 GMT
This is a serious and profound point you are making.
I'd like to think they can be books which can help enlighten few issues of the times, particularly re-reading the technical side with current knowledge and software. But it is also a dangerous operation, because they may de-contextualize issues from what actually happened. History are not just the facts – it's facts and the context within which those facts developed. Reading Hughes’ replies sometimes I sense he reads the past through his modern spreadsheets, and it doesn’t work that way. Someone on the MS comments had already remarked about the sometime flippant comments of Hughes’ aero consultant (McBeath), as if he was in the shoes of Forghieri or Southgate at the time he would have done better. Yeah…
|
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Dec 19, 2017 13:40:23 GMT
This is a serious and profound point you are making.
I'd like to think they can be books which can help enlighten few issues of the times, particularly re-reading the technical side with current knowledge and software. But it is also a dangerous operation, because they may de-contextualize issues from what actually happened. History are not just the facts – it's facts and the context within which those facts developed. Reading Hughes’ replies sometimes I sense he reads the past through his modern spreadsheets, and it doesn’t work that way. Someone on the MS comments had already remarked about the sometime flippant comments of Hughes’ aero consultant (McBeath), as if he was in the shoes of Forghieri or Southgate at the time he would have done better. Yeah…
Lucio, Don't get me wrong, of course history should be looked at in contemporary times for however are people of following generations going to know about matters of the past. You are correct in pointing out that disseminating matters of the past in a modern context are somehow not right; and that was my point of view. No matter how expert these people are, or claim to be, it all comes down to that oft used word "hindsight". For me the only way to look at history is to place ones self back in that time, and with the things that we/they had at their disposal. JC |
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Dec 19, 2017 14:08:14 GMT
I have to say that there are some truly superb comments written in this thread and they are a pleasure to read, my only problem is that there is just too much that could warrant a response; great stuff guys, one and all!
Just a few points. The Carlos Reutemann scenario at Vegas in 1981 just did not ring true to me and I am certain that many others felt the same. However we were given to believe that the guy just plain gave up and walked home with his tail between his legs; that is the story we were fed at the time in the UK.
It is pretty clear now that we were fed lazy; sloppy and biased journalism, and not for the first or last time. British tabloid journalism is something that i am not proud of as an Englishman, but having said that other countries also have huge bias', so it isn't exclusive to the UK. That is no excuse however and it should be called out. It is a known fact that all journalists have their pet sources and feed off them in all walks of life. The great journalists do not go to print with just those news snippets as their main story, they investigate and attempt to get all sides, no matter how difficult.
As I mentioned earlier no English speaking journalist ever asked Didier Pironi for his side of the story after Imola 1982, all we in the Uk got was Roebuck's lazy hugely biased propaganda, based on what evidence. He besmirched the character of Pironi, and unfortunately it appears that Hughes has followed on from that with his protestations of an unholy alliance between Pironi and the then team manager (can't recall the name right now).
Thanks to Rob describing some of the material from his readings of Didier's book the rubbish written that Pironi did not invite Gilles to his wedding, can now be effectively consigned to the scrap heap, amongst several other matters.
Wouldn't it be excellent to get a full and detailed account of what Carlos' perspective of Vegas 1981 actually was. Sadly the knee jerk reaction of the Williams team at the time is still being bandied about, even if we get the occasional comments from Frank and Patrick that maybe they could have handled things differently with some of their drivers. Note the lack of reference to "should have". To my way of thinking it is inexcusable to sign a driver to your team, knowing his strengths and weakness' and to then do nothing to accommodate those aspects.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 18:31:35 GMT
Charles,
of course, journalists have their bias everywhere, we are just discussing one particular episode. For example if you read Autosprint in the '70s you wouldn't believe the vitriol they were throwing at Lauda every week, whose only fault was to allegedly have been preferred by Ferrari instead of Merzario. I appreciated Niki only long time afterwards, looking back I realized the great driver he was (perhaps the best I have seen in my lifetime, since the '70s).
That is why it's important to read from different sources, to know the context and make ourselves an understanding of what happened with a good dose of common sense. We will never have the full picture because we weren't there, of course, but that would also be what historians will be left one hundred years down the line or so. If we leave implausible reports unchallenged, it will be even more difficult for them to see through the mist of the past.
I don't recall what the Italian weekly magazine reported about the facts in Las Vegas, for the simple reason I wasn't Carlos' fan and did not pay attention. I'd doubt they went for Williams' theory on that occasion.
I have Reutemann's autobiography, will dig the page and copy it here, give me a couple of days.
PS: the Ferrari team manager you were referring to was Marco Piccinini.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Dec 19, 2017 19:22:38 GMT
When people are comfortable sitting on a single facet of truth, they are inclined to dismiss all other facets as inconsequential, if only to their agenda. One problem with human frailty is that nobody suffers from any of its aspects. Just ask and they'll tell you.  |
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Dec 19, 2017 19:32:40 GMT
Carl, Really interesting insight into the TV program "High Chaparral", thank you. I must confess that although I was aware of it in the late 1960's I never watched it when aired in the UK, and have not seen the current re-runs, maybe I should. According to Wiki it was produced by the same guy/people that made the very successful "Bonanza". Now then tell everyone about the motor racing link from that series . John Charles |
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Dec 19, 2017 19:43:54 GMT
Carl, Really interesting insight into the TV program "High Chaparral", thank you. I must confess that although I was aware of it in the late 1960's I never watched it when aired in the UK, and have not seen the current re-runs, maybe I should. According to Wiki it was produced by the same guy/people that made the very successful "Bonanza". Now then tell everyone about the motor racing link from that series . John Charles John Charles, All I remember, after you jarred my memory, is Dan Blocker being interested in racing and showing up at race events in bib overalls, I always thought in order to enjoy his sudden celebrity from playing "Hoss" on Bonanza. He was a good person who woke up famous one morning.  David Dortort did produce both programs, but not to the same high standard. Cheers, Carl |
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Dec 20, 2017 16:31:31 GMT
Carl, going back to your original thread if I may,
who were my villains? i didn't care for Farina - or Innes ireland, Jack Brabham especially, but villains? maybe Farina, but not the other two- my villains were/ are:
[1] "dirty drivers" - drivers who deliberately block, impede, force off the circuit, and are generally bad mannered, now? who would be on that list?
[2] Every complacent, arrogant, ignorant, unable to do anything or unaware of the dangers, motor racing circuit that = through whatever reason - led to an unnecessary death or serious injury
[3] the administrators of the sport, who are there for themselves not for the sport or spectators
[4] the mercenaries who have profited from serious accidents
my 'heroes' -
1. Dave Purley
2. Mike Hailwood
3. Jim Endruweit and every single mechanic, manager, individual, designer, tea 'person' and wife/ partner that has been involved in motor sport
4. the marshalls of very circuit
sorry chaps been reading something about a 'hero' and this has sparked a reaction as above
|
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Dec 20, 2017 20:43:27 GMT
Carl, Really interesting insight into the TV program "High Chaparral", thank you. I must confess that although I was aware of it in the late 1960's I never watched it when aired in the UK, and have not seen the current re-runs, maybe I should. According to Wiki it was produced by the same guy/people that made the very successful "Bonanza". Now then tell everyone about the motor racing link from that . John Charles John Charles, All I remember, after you jarred my memory, is Dan Blocker being interested in racing and showing up at race events in bib overalls, I always thought in order to enjoy his sudden celebrity from playing "Hoss" on Bonanza. He was a good person who woke up famous one morning. David Dortort did produce both programs, but not to the same high standard. Cheers, Carl Carl, Dan Blocker did a little more than just go to the races. He co-ran/ran a little team in SCCA events with a Genie Mk10 Olds driven by the very impressive John Cannon. This is a cover of a magazine I believe we both know well, and then another picture set in a western scene, naturally of course with the "Bonanza" connection.   |
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Dec 20, 2017 21:42:45 GMT
John Charles, I remember the beautiful Genie sports racer but had forgotten Dan Blocker was this involved. In the first photo, he appears to want to join his driver, who seems properly dubious. The United States Road Racing Championship was the forerunner of Can-Am and John Cannon was indeed very impressive both in the USRRC and Formula 5000. At a higher level of competition, he won the very wet Laguna Seca Can-Am in 1968 driving an antique McLaren-Elva MkIIB fitted with the only set of Firestone rain tyres. One thing I do remember is that Dan Blocker looked better and more natural wearing bib overalls than Carroll Shelby. Maybe he couldn't fit into a race car, but he wore overalls as though born to the shoulder strap buckle. Cheers, Carl Attachment Deleted |
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Dec 20, 2017 21:49:13 GMT
The Genie is a great looking car.....I nearly bought one of these (Sylva J15) a couple of years ago, looks like they may have taken inspiration from the Genie... Attachment Deleted |
|
