Who was the first 'Rain Master'?
#51
Posted 05 March 2013 - 20:42
I think double digits came in there too.
Advertisement
#52
Posted 05 March 2013 - 20:49
I bow to superior knowledge, I thought he was ahead sooner than that, however by clear track I meant lack of of spray due to other cars. In a way I'm paying devil's advocate here, I thought it was a fantastic drive.
No problem, I had to consult my Guinness Book of Formula 1 Motor Racing for the info! It says Stewart was ahead by Brunnchen. And JYS has acknowledged the benefit of the tyres himself.
#53
Posted 05 March 2013 - 21:38
#54
Posted 05 March 2013 - 22:20
And he reputedly hated the place.
#55
Posted 05 March 2013 - 22:32
Forza Brambilla! And not just in Austria either. I think Vittorio stayed on the track in the Silverstone deluge of 1975, and arguably deserved second place rather than sixth, but not even Max could sweet-talk the officials on that one.What, all this about rainmasters and no mention of the famed, fearless Monza Gorilla?
#56
Posted 05 March 2013 - 22:43
#57
Posted 05 March 2013 - 22:59
Drifting ever further away from the original question, the Zandvoort battle is one of the few I remember where two acknowledged wet weather experts kept it together and had a good old fight, throughout the race. I was watching the opening laps of the 1970 BOAC 1000km the other day and, although Elford led off the line, Ickx was really flying in the 512 and quickly took the lead. If only the wiper motor hadn't packed up. Six hours of Rodriguez versus Ickx, Porsche versus Ferrari....could have been interesting. Almost worth getting wet for. Completely soaked in fact. That's the trouble with the wet races, great in retrospect, or on television, but a bit grim when you're there!
#58
Posted 05 March 2013 - 23:08
Originally posted by Spa65
Surprised that no-one has mentioned Clark. As I remember, both in 63 and 65 he won very wet grand Prix races at Spa by several minutes. Possibly the most dangerous of tracks in that dangeous era.....
Yes, I mentioned him at the German GP in '62 and Solitude in '64, though that was by reference to an earlier thread.
#59
Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:34
Advertisement
#60
Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:35
...as did the Ickx / Rodriguez struggle at Zandvoort in 1971. I remember sitting in a Silverstone grandstand in June '71, watching an NSCC meeting, when they announced the result from Holland: Ickx/Ferrari - Rodriguez/BRM - Regazzoni/Ferrari. I thought I'd gone to heaven. Apparently the Goodyears were terrible that day. Ferraris and BRMs were both on Firestones, allowing Jacky and Pedro to show their skill, but I believe the power bands of the two respective engines played a significant part in the see-saw battle, allowing one to pull away on a wet track, only to be caught as it dried.
Jenks' report said how listening to the smooth throttle control of the two leaders, Ickx in particular, made some of the others look like amateurs. He also commented that the smooth power delivery of the V12s made things much easier for them than the poor buggers sitting in front of a relatively peaky DFV, not at all what you'd want in those conditions.
#61
Posted 06 March 2013 - 10:41
Jenks' report said how listening to the smooth throttle control of the two leaders, Ickx in particular, made some of the others look like amateurs. He also commented that the smooth power delivery of the V12s made things much easier for them than the poor buggers sitting in front of a relatively peaky DFV, not at all what you'd want in those conditions.
You're probably right about the DFVs Rob. Small point, the Ferraris were Flat 12s weren't they? I haven't a Zandvoort race report to hand but I do remember Motoring News or Autocourse also referring to the difference in the way the BRMs and Ferraris could use their twelve cylinder power. I expect it related to Ickx and Rodriguez powering out of the slower corners in changing conditions, torque, traction, engine power bands, and choice of gear. But I can't be sure!
There's some good footage here:
Italian
or German
Edited by john winfield, 06 March 2013 - 10:52.
#62
Posted 06 March 2013 - 21:16
Vitt also drove a great race to finish fourth in the very wet 1977 Belgian GP, his best result of that year.
Brambles went back-to-front twice in that '76 Fuji monsoon, too, did he not?
#63
Posted 06 March 2013 - 23:06
Brambles went back-to-front twice in that '76 Fuji monsoon, too, did he not?
Yes, really motoring, nearly changing the championship outcome on the way with a graceful pirouette in front of Hunt!
#64
Posted 07 March 2013 - 01:49
GILLES VILLENEUVE!
Naturally I'd say that ( ), but was anyone else double-digit-seconds faster than #2 in any session, ever?
Third Practice - Japanese GP 2010
Jaime Alguersuari was 11.595 seconds ahead of Timo Glock in 2nd.
#65
Posted 07 March 2013 - 04:14
#66
Posted 07 March 2013 - 06:20
Much later in his career, he apparently gave up in the wet 1956 Mille Miglia.OTOMH Fangio put in a great wet-weather drive to win the 1951 Swiss GP, a race in which Piero Taruffi also drove well. Fangio finished well over a minute ahead of the other Alfas.
It is remarkable how few wet Grand Prix races there were during the 1950s. I think we can be sure that Fangio would have excelled if it had been necessary.
In the 1960s, the number of wet races increased dramatically, this, no doubt, being a reflection of the Almighty's displeasure at the reduction in personal morality in that decade, the Second Vatican Council and the fact that He wasn't in favour of the 1.5-litre formula.
#67
Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:20
Makes more sense than "Climate Change".In the 1960s, the number of wet races increased dramatically, this, no doubt, being a reflection of the Almighty's displeasure at the reduction in personal morality in that decade, the Second Vatican Council and the fact that He wasn't in favour of the 1.5-litre formula.
#68
Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:35
Darn you, just blew the whole gig, Man.Third Practice - Japanese GP 2010
Jaime Alguersuari was 11.595 seconds ahead of Timo Glock in 2nd.
#69
Posted 07 March 2013 - 13:15
~
In the 1960s, the number of wet races increased dramatically, this, no doubt, being a reflection of the Almighty's displeasure at the reduction in personal morality in that decade, the Second Vatican Council and the fact that He wasn't in favour of the 1.5-litre formula.
I like the hypothesis.
Did the number increase in absolute or percentage terms? Given that the number of races per season increased the absolute number would increase.
With the introduction of rain tyres (Dunlop SP in 1961, I think) people would be more aware that it was raining as teams had to make a tyre choice and it got more critical when wider tyres and slicks came along and the difference was even more noticeable. So is it simply that people (reporters and spectators) now noticed when it was raining. To illustrate this, how many people realise that it rained during the 1954 British GP? It was the unpredictable or inconsistent performance of the Continental tyres on the Mercedes that gave Fangio problems rather than not being able to see his wheels.
Edited by D-Type, 07 March 2013 - 13:17.
#70
Posted 08 March 2013 - 07:35
We should, perhaps, recognise a flooded race and one with conditions changing from lap to lap. It is arguably the latter that demands more from the driver.
#71
Posted 08 March 2013 - 09:40
#72
Posted 08 March 2013 - 10:02
#73
Posted 08 March 2013 - 11:03
#74
Posted 08 March 2013 - 11:06
And Reg Parnell!. Both he, and Duncan were leading the Alfa's when that very wet 1951 International Trophy Race was stopped.As the out and out rain master someone from left field who hasn't been mentioned, Duncan Hamilton.
#75
Posted 08 March 2013 - 20:03
#76
Posted 08 March 2013 - 20:10
More a factor of torquey unblown 4½s against supercharged 1½s than of driver ability, I would have thoughtAnd Reg Parnell!. Both he, and Duncan were leading the Alfa's when that very wet 1951 International Trophy Race was stopped.
#77
Posted 09 March 2013 - 06:49
#78
Posted 09 March 2013 - 08:44
As well as plenty of good old English bloody minded determination!.More a factor of torquey unblown 4½s against supercharged 1½s than of driver ability, I would have thought
#79
Posted 09 March 2013 - 10:58
As well as plenty of good old English bloody minded determination!.
Graham Whitehead in an ERA was also ahead of the Alfas.
When I suggested Duncan Hamilton I was also thinking of his fine drive at Le Mans 1958.
Advertisement
#80
Posted 09 March 2013 - 20:34
Originally posted by Roger Clark
Is it possible that some drivers will hang back in the early stages of a very wet race or practice session, knowing that, if conditions improve, it may not be necessary to take the risks that others take? I'm thinking of..... Clark at Solitude '64.....
It wasn't really Clark's way of doing things, was it?
And Jenks' report seemed to indicate that he was trying his best all the while Surtees was out ahead of him.
#81
Posted 10 March 2013 - 07:19
It's certainly true that hanging back wasn't part of Clark's normal tactics. I've reread the Solitude report and I don't think it's conclusive. DSJ says that Clark deliberately dropped back after Surtees passed him to get out of the spray. He also notes that Clark was very quick to spot the changing conditions and able to pick out dry patches when he was catching Surtees. A similar thing happened at Monaco in 67 when the circuit was made slippery after Brabham dumped his oil. Clark was first to speed up when conditions improved.It wasn't really Clark's way of doing things, was it?
And Jenks' report seemed to indicate that he was trying his best all the while Surtees was out ahead of him.
The ability to excel in changing conditions again.
#82
Posted 10 March 2013 - 07:51
#83
Posted 10 March 2013 - 07:59
If I can add an example I have witnessed rather than just read about , the best wet weather drive I have ever seen was JJ Lehto in a monsoon hit Cadwell. He was astonishing. And the most enteratining was a British GP practice in 90s when all the bloody prima donnas stayed in their pit apart from Alesi- who ragged the arse off his Ferrari. Why ? Because he could - and there was a crowd to entertain.
That's interesting, John; I was thinking about Lehto the other day. I can't remember whether he ever excelled in the wet in Grand Prix racing, but I saw him at Le Mans in 1995. When conditions were bad, he was visibly quicker than everyone, and hauled the black McLaren up into a race winning position. He seemed at ease driving quickly in the wet; others were either more cautious, or out of control.
Edited by john winfield, 10 March 2013 - 08:01.
#84
Posted 10 March 2013 - 16:40
#85
Posted 12 March 2013 - 00:05
DCN
#86
Posted 13 March 2013 - 10:49
#87
Posted 13 March 2013 - 10:59
I think the width of the wheels might have been in Courage's favour at Longford, too.
#88
Posted 13 March 2013 - 11:27
#89
Posted 13 March 2013 - 11:29
#90
Posted 13 March 2013 - 12:14
Innes Ireland did not like the rain and admitted that he was not a good wet weather driver. When he raced a Ferrari in the 1962 International Trophy, he was surpassed to find that he was gaining on the opposition during a rainy spell. He put this down to the Ferrari being a good wet weather car.
I understood that Innes was averse to taking any water with it.
#91
Posted 13 March 2013 - 15:14
If I may be so bold as to correct DCN, Courage was, of course, on Dunlops at Longford in '68. The Firestones were useless that day, Clark, Hill and Amon trailing in 5th, 6th and 7th over a minute behind the winner.
Absolutely right, yet another Duggism. Dunlop 970s?
DCN
#92
Posted 13 March 2013 - 20:34
Originally posted by Roger Clark
Would it be fair to say that, in the early days of their involvement in European racing, Firestone and Goodyear did not have the experience of wet weather tyres that Dunlop did?
There can't have been too much wrong with them...
Rindt wore Firestones at Warwick Farm in '69, did he not? Brabham at the 'ring in '66 would have been on Goodyears.
#93
Posted 14 March 2013 - 10:35
Would it be fair to say that, in the early days of their involvement in European racing, Firestone and Goodyear did not have the experience of wet weather tyres that Dunlop did?
In those days there was not really such a thing as a wet weather tyre, in the mid sixties nobody would make a pit stop to change to "wets". Goodyear got their act together far quicker than Firestone and in 1966 the Goodyears were very effective on a greasy track. In that year Lotus were contracted to Firestone and found their lightly treaded "Indy" tyre to be faster than Dunlops on a dry track. At Spa in '66 Surtees qualified his Ferrari on Firestones but switched to Dunlops when rain threatened before the start (in spite of claiming in his autobiography to have won the race on "lightly treaded Firestones"). Firestone's treaded "wet" tyre was pretty useless in '66, at the Nurburgring, Clark, of all people, could not keep his Lotus on the road. In 1967 there was only one wet race, in Canada and the principal Firestone runners, Clark, Hill and Amon were hampered by their tyres, as they were at Longord in '68. In that fateful F2 race at Hockenheim in April '68 the Firestone runners were nowhere, yet two months later at Rouen, Jacky Ickx blew everyone away in the pouring rain on Firestone's latest "wets".
#94
Posted 18 March 2013 - 07:10
And every one of those names has come up in this thread!
That one would also have been in a winged Lotus 49. It would certainly have been a sight to see!
Hi Ray, Here are some photos (as invited) of some rainmasters of the Tasman Series.
All photos copyright Rod Mackenzie.
I have posted these pics before on other threads, but this thread seems to need a few photos to demonstrate why Ray and I have some biased views on who was a rainmaster.
I'm not saying which others were first or were not - just that these drivers showed us that they were in 1968 and 1969.
(PS I have some other photos on Facebook - Rod Mackenzie Collection if you are interested.)
Edited by launchpad, 18 March 2013 - 07:32.
#95
Posted 18 March 2013 - 07:48
Originally posted by launchpad
Hi Ray, Here are some photos (as invited) of some rainmasters of the Tasman Series.
All photos copyright Rod Mackenzie.
My principal interest here, Rod, was to point out that (in the light of Doug's post about Longford '68) it wasn't only the Dunlop treads aiding Piers Courage, but also that he was on narrower tyres which was also a great benefit in the aquaplaning conditions on that high speed circuit.
Thanks for putting them on. None of Derek at the Farm?
#96
Posted 18 March 2013 - 08:16
My principal interest here, Rod, was to point out that (in the light of Doug's post about Longford '68) it wasn't only the Dunlop treads aiding Piers Courage, but also that he was on narrower tyres which was also a great benefit in the aquaplaning conditions on that high speed circuit.
Thanks for putting them on. None of Derek at the Farm?
Ray I have this one - but none in the wet.
Derek was talented and drove really well.
Rod
#97
Posted 18 March 2013 - 18:29
#98
Posted 19 March 2013 - 09:16
I think he did enjoy himself that weekend.
#99
Posted 19 March 2013 - 10:04
But an obscure one which sticks in my mind is a GT race at Silverstone in which Bill Bradley - yes, Bill Bradley - went like the clappers in a Porsche 906 or 910? I think the latter?
DCN
I'm reminded of the Ilford Films 500 at Brands in '66. Topsy turvy race in rain which allowed Roger Enever's MGB to finish third in a field which included GT40s, 250LMs and Cobras. More to the point the race was led for a while by Jackie Oliver and Ken Baker in Ken's E Type.