Non-qualifiers at 1976 British GP?

To get in the mood for the US debut of "Rush" I dug out my photos from the '76 British GP. One not especially good photo was of Divina Galica in the Shellsport Surtees. Divina very kindly shared some recollections of that weekend, even though she didn't qualify. She also mentioned there were 30 cars trying to make the race.

I long ago lost my program from this race, but I'm sure our TNF experts can tell me who else missed the race.

Thanks

Edited by gfastr, 17 September 2013 - 14:25.

I seem to remember Brian McGuire was entered and possibly turned up but didn't take part in qualifying. (No tyres?)

I seem to remember Brian McGuire was entered and possibly turned up but didn't take part in qualifying. (No tyres?)

He certainly failed to qualify in 1977

The programme listed two official reserves - Mike Wilds (1st reserve) and Brian McGuire in his Williams FW04 (2nd reserve). According to Pete Lyons in Autosport Wilds was not allowed to practise in the first session, and McGuire, as Alan says, wasn't seen at all.

DNQ 20 Jacky Ickx Wolf-Williams-Ford         DNQ 13 Divina Galica Surtees-Ford         DNQ 40 Mike Wilds Shadow-Ford         DNQ 33 Lella Lombardi Brabham-Ford

Thanks for filling in the blanks. I'd completely forgotten this was one of those rare occasions when TWO female drivers attempted to qualify for Formula One Grand Prix/

It looks like Jacky Ickx missed making the grid by about 0.6 sec, but Lella Lombardi was more than three seconds behind the slowest qualifiers:

http://statsf1.com/e...lification.aspx

Edited by Emery0323, 17 September 2013 - 22:25.

How serious were the Lombardi and Galica entries?  Were they really just to drum up some advance publicity and ticket sales?

I'm not suggesting that the two drivers were anything but totally serious in their attempts to qualify.

How serious were the Lombardi and Galica entries?  Were they really just to drum up some advance publicity and ticket sales?

 

I'm not suggesting that the two drivers were anything but totally serious in their attempts to qualify.

Here's Divina's recollection, as recounted to me

He certainly failed to qualify in 1977

He failed to Pre-Qualify actually (1977 was probably  the very first year that we saw a pre-qualifying session) in a modified Williams FW04 that he called the 'McGuiree BM1'.

I thought pre-qualifying started with Bernies concorde agreement in 1982? Only came into effect when more than 30 cars arrived? Thanks for this thread -one thing i had not noticed before was this was the only F1WCGP where two females practiced?

Edited by Rob29, 20 September 2013 - 15:47.

There was definitely prequalifying for the 1977 British GP. Fourteen drivers took part in two sessions on the Wednesday before the GP, with (eventually) eight being allowed into the official practice sessions. It was during the second prequalifying session that David Purley had his dreadful accident in the LEC.

Edited by Tim Murray, 20 September 2013 - 18:40.

And I think it was the first time that the general public saw Gilles Villeneuve at the wheel of an F1 car.

I clearly remember wandering around the paddock during the lunch break, spotting David Purley (what a charming man he was) and asking for his autograph. I then wished him the best of luck for the afternoon session. Maybe I shouldn't have...

Edward

I clearly remember wandering around the paddock during the lunch break, spotting David Purley (what a charming man he was) and asking for his autograph. I then wished him the best of luck for the afternoon session. Maybe I shouldn't have...

 

Edward

Things may have been worse if you hadn't.

I believe  Lombardi holds the record for the lowest points score standing after being given half a point for finishing 6th in Spain after a shortened race in '75

Over a career, yes.  In a season, Jean Behra finished 1954 with 0.142857r points, on the basis that the timing of the British GP (and the fastest lap point) was done on the One Mississippi basis.

... was done on the One Mississippi basis.

Elephant, surely? (They were British timekeepers, don't you know, old bean).

As a lifelong Jacky Ickx fan, I remember feeling devastated when the commentator announced that he had failed to qualify. Thank heavens he never drove that car again, and was able to regain some credit at the wheel of the Ensign later on in the season, despite the nasty happenings at Watkins Glen.

Edward

I believe  Lombardi holds the record for the lowest points score standing after being given half a point for finishing 6th in Spain after a shortened race in '75

And coincidentally the highest points score for a woman driver. (both career and race)

Over a career, yes.  In a season, Jean Behra finished 1954 with 0.142857r points, on the basis that the timing of the British GP (and the fastest lap point) was done on the One Mississippi basis.

As DSJ explained once, the chief timekeeper was from the National Physics Laboratory.  He decided that, in terms of the NPL standards, with hand timing, and with multiple cars on the track and the possibility of obcuring, he could not be at all confident that times were accurate to ¹/₁₀ second and was only something like 90% confident of times to even ¹/₅ second so he opted to provide times to the nearest second.  Given that approach, I don't understand why they didn't go to the nearest ¹/₂  second though.

So, because he couldn't be satisfied with the accuracy, he gave a result which was certainly inaccurate.  Was he in management by any chance?

As a lifelong Jacky Ickx fan, I remember feeling devastated when the commentator announced that he had failed to qualify. 

 

Edward

Me too, Edward, although I was getting used to it by Brands. I had made my first overseas motor racing trip that year, to Zolder with Chequers Travel. I thoroughly enjoyed the Ferrari domination, and Chris Amon's drive, but was saddened by Ickx failing to qualify as, you can imagine, were most of the crowd. (Emerson didn't qualify in Belgium either - tough times for two recent front-runners).

Edited by john winfield, 24 September 2013 - 11:13.

So, because he couldn't be satisfied with the accuracy, he gave a result which was certainly inaccurate.  Was he in management by any chance?

I don't see how the times could have been "inaccurate" just because they didn't show fifths or tenths. It's entirely proper to "shorten" times given in fractions of a second to full seconds (just don't round them up!), as in "I did a 1 minute 45 seconds lap" when the time was actually 1'45.69". Are today's results also "inaccurate" because they don't show 1/10000000... fractions of a second?

I meant the result was inaccurate, in that, whatever else one thinks of the timing, there is probably a one in gazillion chance that seven men genuinely shared the fastest lap.  Something like that was the inevitable result from not attempting to get something more accurate. 

Incidentally, I'd say a 1'45" lap would have to be under that.  A four minute mile is not just under five.

there is probably a one in gazillion chance that seven men genuinely shared the fastest lap

Define "genuinely". It's all about degrees of accuracy isn't it?

The BBC commentary team always seem to call a lap of, say, 1:45.894 as a 1:45.8 lap, which is a bit annoying. If you are going to round numbers at least do it correctly.

Define "genuinely". It's all about degrees of accuracy isn't it?

 

The BBC commentary team always seem to call a lap of, say, 1:45.894 as a 1:45.8 lap, which is a bit annoying. If you are going to round numbers at least do it correctly.

Yes, but correctness is not necessarily the point. 

When I started timing for my friend's Formula Ford, he quickly let me know that a 1:45.8 lap (or a 1:45.999) should be referred to as a "1:45" lap as in 1.45.000!

It's all about pumping up the driver...

Define "genuinely". It's all about degrees of accuracy isn't it?

You can be fairly certain if someone throws in a 1.45.1 he's faster than someone with a 1.45.9.   At least so long as Robin Herd doesn't have a pit board in his hands.

At Silverstone in 1954, 1.45.1 would have been quoted as 1.45 and 1.45.9 would have been quoted a 1.46.   

The problem the physicists had was whether they could be certain that a time of 1.45.1 was definitely faster than one of 1.45.2 when both were recorded with a handheld stopwatch.  It's the same as saying "Can you be sure that a measurement you have made with a ruler is accurate to 1mm?

If anything, it points out the stupidity of a system where bunging in one decent lap was worth more than shlepping around for three hours in Argentine-levels of heat for a sixth, but that's by the by.  At 90% accuracy of fifths, they'd've been 70% confident of getting the right single fastest lap, and so would be more accurate than the 0.0000001% chance that seven shared it.

Then again, had the title been decided by one point, it's better to be completely inaccurate than slightly inaccurate. 

So, because he couldn't be satisfied with the accuracy, he gave a result which was certainly inaccurate.  Was he in management by any chance?

This is first for TNF, surely?  Many members arguing that the good old days were a bit inadequate compared to today.  Oh well, it had to happen eventually.

 

The BBC commentary team always seem to call a lap of, say, 1:45.894 as a 1:45.8 lap, which is a bit annoying. If you are going to round numbers at least do it correctly.

No, it's not annoying, it's correct! Times (and average speeds) are always rounded down, if done correctly, because that is the way clocks work: they show a second (or minute, or hour, day... etc.) only when the full time has elapsed. Check your nearest clock if you don't believe me!  You don't say that today, after 12:00 pm it is already Friday, do you?

At Silverstone in 1954, 1.45.1 would have been quoted as 1.45 and 1.45.9 would have been quoted a 1.46.   

 

No, both times would have been quoted as 1'45", see above. And it has nothing to do with "pumping up the driver", or some form of cheating, it's just physical reality. The "four-minute mile" is actually the (incorrect) anomaly.

P.S. And, PLEASE, stop retelling that old Robin Herd myth about the pit board!

Edited by Michael Ferner, 26 September 2013 - 07:47.

No, it's not annoying, it's correct! Times (and average speeds) are always rounded down, if done correctly, because that is the way clocks work: they show a second (or minute, or hour, day... etc.) only when the full time has elapsed. Check your nearest clock if you don't believe me!  You don't say that today, after 12:00 pm it is already Friday, do you?
 
 
No, both times would have been quoted as 1'45", see above. And it has nothing to do with "pumping up the driver", or some form of cheating, it's just physical reality. The "four-minute mile" is actually the (incorrect) anomaly.

No, it's not annoying, it's correct! Times (and average speeds) are always rounded down, if done correctly, because that is the way clocks work: they show a second (or minute, or hour, day... etc.) only when the full time has elapsed. Check your nearest clock if you don't believe me!  You don't say that today, after 12:00 pm it is already Friday, do you?

 

 

No, both times would have been quoted as 1'45", see above. And it has nothing to do with "pumping up the driver", or some form of cheating, it's just physical reality. The "four-minute mile" is actually the (incorrect) anomaly.

 

 

 

 

Michael,

I tend to agree with David.....remind me never to ask you the time. 

In my view a commentator would be sloppy to describe a 1. 45.894 lap as a 1.45.  'Into the 1.45s' perhaps but not a '1.45'; that would be misleading.

Doesn't it depend on the context?  The 'four minute mile' is just convenient shorthand; I think most people realise that it means fractionally under four minutes. If we're talking about speed, 'the first 300km/h lap', for example, would mean over 300km/h.

I think your Friday example is a bit different. It's a defined 24 hour period and, yes, if we're 22 hours into it we still call it Friday.  The 1.45 / 1.46 description refers to a completed lap, and how best to describe it.

Edited by john winfield, 26 September 2013 - 09:38.

P.S. And, PLEASE, stop retelling that old Robin Herd myth about the pit board!

OT maybe, but quite interesting. Can you elaborate, please?

The main reason for doubting Robin Herd's story is that at Anderstorp the start/finish line was separated from the pits by nearly half a lap, so it would have been impossible for Herd in the pits to have broken the timing beam by waving the pit board in front of it. Secondly, according to the reports Brambilla was visibly the quickest car all weekend until his tyres went off when he was leading the race, so there was no need for any cheating. I do wonder, though, whether Herd might indeed have practised this trick, but at some other circuit.

Sorry Michael, I have to disagree

Maybe it's a language thing, but if you're talking about "rounding times to the nearest full second", it means that. The nearest full second to 1m 49.2 in 1m 49, but the nearest to 1m 49.9 is 1m 50

Also, in military circles at least, the term 12pm is never used. Does it mean a minute past 11.59pm or a minute before 12.01pm?

No, it's not a language thing, it's physics (and mathematics). I'm not talking about "rounding to the nearest", but about "rounding down". And sorry about the apparently incorrect time, in German we don't use am or pm, we just say 12 o'clock (or midnight in the other case). What I meant was noon. So, is it Friday now?

Michael,

I tend to agree with David.....remind me never to ask you the time. 

 

In my view a commentator would be sloppy to describe a 1. 45.894 lap as a 1.45.  'Into the 1.45s' perhaps but not a '1.45'; that would be misleading.

 

Doesn't it depend on the context?  The 'four minute mile' is just convenient shorthand; I think most people realise that it means fractionally under four minutes. If we're talking about speed, 'the first 300km/h lap', for example, would mean over 300km/h.

 

I think your Friday example is a bit different. It's a defined 24 hour period and, yes, if we're 22 hours into it we still call it Friday.  The 1.45 / 1.46 description refers to a completed lap, and how best to describe it.

1'45" as a shorthand for 1'45.8" is not misleading, it's correct usage. 1'46" would be misleading. The "four-minute mile" is an anomaly that is almost a hundred years old, and thus nobody questions it, but correctly it should be called a "three-minute mile". But I guess it is the same as with the usage of percent when percent points are meant. We just had an election again here this weekend, and people continue to describe a gain from 4 % to 6 % as a "2 % gain", when it's actually 50 %. Some people simply don't want to understand, and continue to confuse. It's useless to argue, I know, but sometimes I can't resist!

The main reason for doubting Robin Herd's story is that at Anderstorp the start/finish line was separated from the pits by nearly half a lap, so it would have been impossible for Herd in the pits to have broken the timing beam by waving the pit board in front of it. Secondly, according to the reports Brambilla was visibly the quickest car all weekend until his tyres went off when he was leading the race, so there was no need for any cheating. I do wonder, though, whether Herd might indeed have practised this trick, but at some other circuit.

Yes, all that and more. There was no intermediate timing in those days, so that Herd could never have known if Brambo was on a hot lap or not, and by waving a pit board in front of the timing beam (if at all possible in a practical matter!!) he would automatically destroy the time for the following lap, so that it is (even in theory) a very bad, bad idea. I always thought of it as a very tall story, told to expose those who have no knowledge of the sport. Quite surprising, actually, how many (who REALLY should know better) have bought it!

No, it's not a language thing, it's physics (and mathematics).

Good, I feel on much safer ground arguing with you about mathematics than about motor sport!

I agree a clock only shows elapsed time, but that isn't the point I was making. If you can measure to thousandths of a second, but choose to round off to the nearest tenth, then it's more accurate to say 1:45.9 than 1:45.8 in the above example. I accept that the "true" elapsed time is probably between 1:45.8940 and 1:45.8949 though, rather than between 1:45.8936 and 1:45.8944.

I also agree that percentages are lethal in the wrong hands.

No, it's not a language thing, it's physics (and mathematics). I'm not talking about "rounding to the nearest", but about "rounding down".

Michael, you write '........1'45" as a shorthand for 1'45.8" is not misleading, it's correct usage. 1'46" would be misleading'    Correct/misleading for whom?   A pure mathematician perhaps, but not for some (most?) people.  If I were referring to Niki Lauda's qualifying time at the Nurburgring in 1975, I might say he did a 6.58, or a 6.59, or that he broke the 7 minute barrier. I would never say he did a 6 minute lap.  I don't think you can transfer your ' correct' terminology into the real world can you?  Your percentage example is different and I fully agree...it's two percentage points or a 50% increase.

You also write '.....The "four-minute mile" is an anomaly that is almost a hundred years old, and thus nobody questions it, but correctly it should be called a "three-minute mile".    Sorry, I can't find the 'bollocks' icon.   

How about a sub-four minute mile? Or Lauda's sub-seven minute lap?

Who apart from you is talking about rounding down?

That is the problem!

But it's you who's (apparently) upset about the correct procedure, so I'm not complaining.

I'm reminded of the Yorkshire farmer with a talking sheepdog. In the morning the farmer sends him off to let his sheep out of their pen. "How many were there lad?" asks the farmer.

"Seventeen" replies the dog.

Later that day the farmer sends the dog off to get the sheep back in their pen.

" How many were there lad?" asks the farmer on the dog's return.

"Twenty" replies the dog. "Twenty ? There was only seventeen there this morning" queries the farmer.

"You asked me round 'em up" says the dog. 

I'm reminded of the Yorkshire farmer with a talking sheepdog. In the morning the farmer sends him off to let his sheep out of their pen. "How many were there lad?" asks the farmer.

"Seventeen" replies the dog.

Later that day the farmer sends the dog off to get the sheep back in their pen.

" How many were there lad?" asks the farmer on the dog's return.

"Twenty" replies the dog. "Twenty ? There was only seventeen there this morning" queries the farmer.

"You asked me round 'em up" says the dog. 

The Pedants are in force today! Next you'll be telling me I haven't just hit 40 but I'm in my 41st year! Come on guys, we all know what is meant when we read the sport pages. As for 4 minute mile, if you were indeed old enough to watch it, then you'll know it was breaking the sub 4 minute barrier. The only people who seem to disagree with all this in sport is the drag racing fraternity in America who get all excited when a car covers the quarter mile (or whatever they want to measure it by this week) in 9.999 secs and the owner all of a sudden advertises it for sale as a '9second car'.  ...............Puts flame suit on.......

So, can we all get back to the original subject now?

Rush just had it's premier here in Dubai tonight and I missed out. Do I go and see it at the cinema, or wait for the DVD where I can control the sound on a decent system, the picture on a decent screen and the lack of screaming kids chucking popcorn and M&M's at each other. comments please?

screaming kids chucking popcorn and M&M's at each other

Are they allowed to do that in Dubai ?

Vince H.

Are they allowed to do that in Dubai ?

 

Vince H.

Along with answering phones mid film and talking loudly, it happens. remember when you read the bad press about Dubai, it's the press's view taken from the (usually) Brit ex pat who was in the wrong in the first place and should really be quiet. The only case I've read recently which doesn't seem to have another side to it is poor Sean Emmet (MotoGP,BSB), who's still here and nobody knows why. The rest of the idiots, sex on the beach, sex in a taxi etc, there is another side to the story and they deserve what they get.

Ooops, that got me on my soap box about misbehaving expats quite quickly....sorry!

The Pedants are in force today!

You think that was pedantic, it wasn't. If it's pedantry you want, then maybe it's worth pointing out that the term "4-minute mile" was never intended to represent a (physically correct) time measurement, but a shorthand for "running a mile in four minutes (or less)". That's semantics/linguistics, not physics, two totally different fields of science. And as for...

we all know what is meant when we read the sport pages.

... that is precisely the point, since we're reading two different meanings into the same statement, hence we don't "all know what is meant", we have different concepts of "what is meant", hence the discussion. Thankfully, the drag racing fraternity is not "the only (group of) people" doing it right, or else the confusion would be even bigger! To illustrate the point again, imagine two timekeepers, each holding a stop watch, one accurate to 1/1000 of a second, the other to 1/10. Now, to use the example of E. B.'s original post in this OT discussion, the first timekeeper registers a time of 1'45.894", what do you think the other watch will show? Why, 1'45.8", of course! Same with the dragsters, but imagine the second stop watch is only accurate to a full second: one will show 9.999", and the other one? That's right, it will show a time of 9 seconds!! It's a "9-second car", and everybody* knows that it has done a time under ten seconds.

* everybody but those who think that science is a waste of time

No, the second stopwatch will show a time of 9.9 seconds. 

Only Murray Walker truly grasps the concept.

Nigel Mansell's pitstop, 1987 British GP. Stopwatch shows 9.54 seconds.

Murray: "Just under 10 seconds for Nigel Mansell. Call it 9.5 seconds in round figures".