Now, don't get me wrong, the truth is, I've never written a book and thanks to some straight talking from David McKinney, I doubt if I ever will. BUT - if I did, I think I'd be VERY careful to make sure that what was in it was accurate.
Tpying errors ar all two freqeunt - and can happen to anyone but how, I would like to know, do glaring mistakes get into print? Does nobody ever check these things?
I refer to that excellent book by Mike Lawrence about F1 cars from 1945-65. As I said, printing errors accepted, I cannot believe that a guy whose knowledge of motor sport far surpasses my own and who has seen races since before even Jean Alesi got into Grand Prix racing, could put a colour picture in the book, and the get some of the details of it so totally wrong. I looked at a picture of a Ferrari at Aintree in 1957 without looking at the caption, and thought, ah, Monsieur Trintignant. The moustache is ever so slightly a give-away! Then my eyes fell to the caption "Luigi Musso in the Ferrari at the 1957 British Grand Prix".
I had to go and check my Data Book, after all Luigi might have grown a moustache for that race, but no, car #16, definitely Trintignant.
How does this happen?
Errors in books
Started by
Barry Boor
, Jul 12 2001 22:33
245 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
Hans Etzrodt
-
- 3,188 posts
- Joined: July 00
Member
Posted 12 July 2001 - 23:24
Barry,
Poor proofreaders, time pressure and deadlines have to be met. I don’t know all but it’s scary.
Poor proofreaders, time pressure and deadlines have to be met. I don’t know all but it’s scary.
#3
leegle
-
- 499 posts
- Joined: June 01
Member
Posted 13 July 2001 - 00:06
George Bishop's Concise Dictionary of Motorsport has a photo of Graham Hill in the H16 BRM and the caption says it's 1.5 litres. It seems a lot of errors are made in the captions perhaps they are added in later and in a hurry?
#4
Barry Lake
-
- 2,169 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 13 July 2001 - 02:21
Yes. Spot on.
The author often is blamed for mistakes made by the publishers.
The sad fact is that publishers always (almost? There must be some exceptions) are in such a hurry to get the book out there and start bringing in money, they often don't give the author, nor anyone else the opportunity to correct these things.
I was once sacked as a proofreader of a very important book part way through the project because I was "finding too many corrections". The budget didn't allow for getting it right. I was, and still am, horrified. It was a reference book of importance. I offered to continue the job free of charge. They said no, it would take too long.
Captions often are written at a later date by someone other than the author, with scant regard for accuracy.
Editors and publishers value promptness far more than accuracy, I am afraid.
As long as the books continue to sell, they will continue to do it (same for magazines).
You could try organising all the magazine and book buyers in the world into a union, have one book bought and proof-read and then, if it is not up to standard, tell the publisher no more books bought until you get it right.
Impossible, of course. So, until we have true enthusiasts self-publishing books, we will have to learn to live with these errors.
But self publishing doesn't entirely fix the problem either. Witness the Sheldon books - great to have, but riddled with errors just the same, and also - probably less well known on this forum - the Dick Wallen speedway books from the USA. Fantastic publications with incredible detail and photos, but recently we have discovered numerous mistakes in drivers birth dates and death dates. There no doubt are more errors in other areas.
Getting it 100 per cent right is a near impossibility. If you only ever write and produce one book in your lifetime it might be possible. Otherwise, there usually is a choice of accepting a book that is 90-something per cent right, or live without the book because it never will be finished. I have some in the latter category in the (never ending) pipeline. Probably David McKinney also - unless we can prod him into returning to NZ and devoting some years to writing his history of NZ motor racing...
The author often is blamed for mistakes made by the publishers.
The sad fact is that publishers always (almost? There must be some exceptions) are in such a hurry to get the book out there and start bringing in money, they often don't give the author, nor anyone else the opportunity to correct these things.
I was once sacked as a proofreader of a very important book part way through the project because I was "finding too many corrections". The budget didn't allow for getting it right. I was, and still am, horrified. It was a reference book of importance. I offered to continue the job free of charge. They said no, it would take too long.
Captions often are written at a later date by someone other than the author, with scant regard for accuracy.
Editors and publishers value promptness far more than accuracy, I am afraid.
As long as the books continue to sell, they will continue to do it (same for magazines).
You could try organising all the magazine and book buyers in the world into a union, have one book bought and proof-read and then, if it is not up to standard, tell the publisher no more books bought until you get it right.
Impossible, of course. So, until we have true enthusiasts self-publishing books, we will have to learn to live with these errors.
But self publishing doesn't entirely fix the problem either. Witness the Sheldon books - great to have, but riddled with errors just the same, and also - probably less well known on this forum - the Dick Wallen speedway books from the USA. Fantastic publications with incredible detail and photos, but recently we have discovered numerous mistakes in drivers birth dates and death dates. There no doubt are more errors in other areas.
Getting it 100 per cent right is a near impossibility. If you only ever write and produce one book in your lifetime it might be possible. Otherwise, there usually is a choice of accepting a book that is 90-something per cent right, or live without the book because it never will be finished. I have some in the latter category in the (never ending) pipeline. Probably David McKinney also - unless we can prod him into returning to NZ and devoting some years to writing his history of NZ motor racing...
#5
Barry Lake
-
- 2,169 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 13 July 2001 - 02:29
I just thought of something else.
In the past, I have asked the acknowledged experts on a subject to proof read material (not always mine, including when I was an editor).
These are the same people who always will point out the mistakes in a published work. Yet, many errors slip by them at the proof-reading stage.
What is easy to see in the finished article, it seems, is difficult to see in original manuscripts and on a computer screen.
But also, human psychology comes into it. Paid as a proof-reader, some people treat it as "just a job" and find only some of the errors. The same person, as a self-styled critic, without a time limit, will find far more errors in a finished work proof-read by someone else.
And then there is the problem of an editor creating new errors while trying to correct an old error pointed out by author or proof-reader...
In the past, I have asked the acknowledged experts on a subject to proof read material (not always mine, including when I was an editor).
These are the same people who always will point out the mistakes in a published work. Yet, many errors slip by them at the proof-reading stage.
What is easy to see in the finished article, it seems, is difficult to see in original manuscripts and on a computer screen.
But also, human psychology comes into it. Paid as a proof-reader, some people treat it as "just a job" and find only some of the errors. The same person, as a self-styled critic, without a time limit, will find far more errors in a finished work proof-read by someone else.
And then there is the problem of an editor creating new errors while trying to correct an old error pointed out by author or proof-reader...
#6
Don Capps
-
- 5,933 posts
- Joined: May 99
Member
Posted 13 July 2001 - 03:14
BTW, is this the same Barry J. Boor of Llandegfan, Anglesey who had a letter to the editor entitled "Call that Grand Prix?" published in the Autosport of 23 April 1987?
Barry Lake speaks Great Truth. During my stints in the academic world I witnessed the same problems. One of my greatest problems as a referee for journal articles and reviewing the galley proofs for a university press was correcting the little "glitches" that somehow sneak in. More than once whoppers got through the system and caused no end of problems later on. A collegue was almost reduced to tears when he saw that a caption was pure fantasy and an important paragraph contained several typos that would haunt him for years since they entirely changed the meaning of the information -- and we had corrected the very same mistake when we checked the proofs!!!!!
T'ain't easy, McGee.....
Barry Lake speaks Great Truth. During my stints in the academic world I witnessed the same problems. One of my greatest problems as a referee for journal articles and reviewing the galley proofs for a university press was correcting the little "glitches" that somehow sneak in. More than once whoppers got through the system and caused no end of problems later on. A collegue was almost reduced to tears when he saw that a caption was pure fantasy and an important paragraph contained several typos that would haunt him for years since they entirely changed the meaning of the information -- and we had corrected the very same mistake when we checked the proofs!!!!!
T'ain't easy, McGee.....
#7
UAtkins
-
- 228 posts
- Joined: January 01
Member
Posted 13 July 2001 - 03:15
My job involves technical editing of Design Narrative reports and project Specifications for an architectural and engineering firm. I find that I often have to go through a document several times because when you find one type of mistake and go through the document looking for it (unless it's something you can do with a global search and replace) you miss other things so you have to sort of focus on one thing at a time to get it right. I also find that after you work on something for so long you end up reading what it is supposed to say. That is the point of having a third-party do your proof reading.
I also am fortunate in that although I am "only" an Administrative Assistant I have 30 years of construction background in everything from electrical to environmental so I can actually find technical errors that get by my engineers and architects. However, I find that there are very few people who have this knowledge or who can actually proof read a document as they are working on it. The only drawback is that I "proof read" everything! I find myself editing emails, forum posts etc., etc.!!
I think you will find that most of the publisher's proof readers have no background in what they are reading, they may understand spelling and grammar but, in making something grammatically correct they can really mess up a technical report by "fixing" things that don't need to be fixed. I am sure that your budgetary constraints are also an issue, I know that I am often presented with large reports that are on a deadline and sometimes I have to make a decision as to how much I can correct in the time I am given. If the publishers apply pressure and don't care about the end product quality, perhaps they feel as though the author will be the one who will get the credit/blame for any errors?
Well, having said all this, I'd better run spellcheck!
Ursula
I also am fortunate in that although I am "only" an Administrative Assistant I have 30 years of construction background in everything from electrical to environmental so I can actually find technical errors that get by my engineers and architects. However, I find that there are very few people who have this knowledge or who can actually proof read a document as they are working on it. The only drawback is that I "proof read" everything! I find myself editing emails, forum posts etc., etc.!!
I think you will find that most of the publisher's proof readers have no background in what they are reading, they may understand spelling and grammar but, in making something grammatically correct they can really mess up a technical report by "fixing" things that don't need to be fixed. I am sure that your budgetary constraints are also an issue, I know that I am often presented with large reports that are on a deadline and sometimes I have to make a decision as to how much I can correct in the time I am given. If the publishers apply pressure and don't care about the end product quality, perhaps they feel as though the author will be the one who will get the credit/blame for any errors?
Well, having said all this, I'd better run spellcheck!
Ursula
#8
Barry Lake
-
- 2,169 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 13 July 2001 - 05:00
Ursula
Proof reading does get to be a habit.
My son, who did a long stint as production editor of magazines and annuals, proof-reads labels on food containers, the credits for movies... anything and everything that passes before his eyes!
He is highly sought after by people with annuals filled with detailed specifications that are ultra important. A race horse breeders annual is one. He has been doing proof reading for me - stories, detailed race results etc - since he was in primary school. It's all my fault.
It gets a bit embarassing when you start proof-reading people's letters and Christmas cards, too.
And, speaking of spell check, has anyone noticed how careless proof reading has become in some areas, where you can tell they've used spell check and rely on it 100 per cent.
All those "that"s instead of "than"s and vice versa, as just a small example. If the mistaken word is still a word - though not the correct one - it doesn't get a red line under it. And then the lazy proof reader goes right on past it.
And what havoc can be created if the proof-reader using a spell checker hits "add" instead of "change". The mistake can keep coming back to haunt anyone using the same spell checker!
You are dead right about the dangers of proof reading your own material - especially just after you've written it. Sounds great sometimes, then reads like a pile of rubbish when you read it again at a later date! Biggest problem in that case, I often find, is using a word two or more times in quick succession.
Proof reading does get to be a habit.
My son, who did a long stint as production editor of magazines and annuals, proof-reads labels on food containers, the credits for movies... anything and everything that passes before his eyes!
He is highly sought after by people with annuals filled with detailed specifications that are ultra important. A race horse breeders annual is one. He has been doing proof reading for me - stories, detailed race results etc - since he was in primary school. It's all my fault.
It gets a bit embarassing when you start proof-reading people's letters and Christmas cards, too.
And, speaking of spell check, has anyone noticed how careless proof reading has become in some areas, where you can tell they've used spell check and rely on it 100 per cent.
All those "that"s instead of "than"s and vice versa, as just a small example. If the mistaken word is still a word - though not the correct one - it doesn't get a red line under it. And then the lazy proof reader goes right on past it.
And what havoc can be created if the proof-reader using a spell checker hits "add" instead of "change". The mistake can keep coming back to haunt anyone using the same spell checker!
You are dead right about the dangers of proof reading your own material - especially just after you've written it. Sounds great sometimes, then reads like a pile of rubbish when you read it again at a later date! Biggest problem in that case, I often find, is using a word two or more times in quick succession.
#9
Zawed
-
- 4,500 posts
- Joined: February 99
Member
Posted 13 July 2001 - 05:34
Its irritating when you pay good money for a book and it has mistakes in it. For example in the 2000 Autocourse, in the career performances section on pg 265, it has HHF credited with 61 fastest laps...
#10
Barry Boor
-
- 11,549 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 13 July 2001 - 06:23
Yes, Don, it is indeed!
I had half a dozen letters published in Autosport through the years but I confess to having no recollection whatsoever as to which Grand Prix that letter was aimed at.
I hope I made no mistakes!
I had half a dozen letters published in Autosport through the years but I confess to having no recollection whatsoever as to which Grand Prix that letter was aimed at.
I hope I made no mistakes!
#11
Roger Clark
-
- 7,506 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 13 July 2001 - 06:51
The colour section of Mike Laurence's book seems particularly prone to errors. Barry has pointed out on another thread that the picture captioned as Jim Clark in an F1 Lotus 18 is actually a Formula Junior car. These things happen and I can understand that the colour section was under an even tighter deadline. It would, however, be interesting to know whethher these erors were corected in the later editions of the book.
#12
Marco94
-
- 393 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 13 July 2001 - 09:05
The problem with captions, is that a proof reader may not be as knowledgable as others when it comes to correlating the information in the picture with that in the caption. Even if they are extremelly able to correct typos (typo's ?), poor formulation, they can still make mistakes with the caption.
Fortunatly with the wonderfull capabilities of the Internet, publishing errata is very simple. Even I have my own little corner on the Web. Mistakes are made, that's a fact. You should aim for as little mistakes as possible. Mistakes that are discovered should be verified, corrected and published.
Here's one for Barry Lake:
Or Barry's postings. Is it "proof reading" or "proof-reading."
Fortunatly with the wonderfull capabilities of the Internet, publishing errata is very simple. Even I have my own little corner on the Web. Mistakes are made, that's a fact. You should aim for as little mistakes as possible. Mistakes that are discovered should be verified, corrected and published.
Here's one for Barry Lake:
Proof reading does get to be a habit.
[snip]
It gets a bit embarassing when you start proof-reading people's letters and Christmas cards, too.
Or Barry's postings. Is it "proof reading" or "proof-reading."
#13
Michael Müller
-
- 1,181 posts
- Joined: November 00
Member
Posted 13 July 2001 - 11:24
The problem is that such errors are carried forward and forward, especially in the internet where countless websites use scanned photos or copies from pics already uploaded elsewhere. Especially this one, showing Ascari at Modena 1950 in the new 166 F2/50 is widely known as Rudi Fischer's Tipo 212.
.jpg)
Up to now I don't found the origin of this mistake, but it must be somewhere in a book. In the very early beginnings of our Ferrari research we therefore had been convinced that Fischer's 212 was simply a 166 with enlarged engine. Wrong of course!
And what about this? Clearly Whitehead's 125C # 10C at the International Trophy Silverstone 1950.
.jpg)
But Tanner-Nye in their Ferrari book say Whitehead with Thin Wall Special. Based on the bodywork only potential possibility could be TWS # 1, which Whitehead may have seen, but never drove. Egon Thurner's remark on this - and other mistakes - "You buy a bible only to find out it's just another novel".
Up to now I don't found the origin of this mistake, but it must be somewhere in a book. In the very early beginnings of our Ferrari research we therefore had been convinced that Fischer's 212 was simply a 166 with enlarged engine. Wrong of course!
And what about this? Clearly Whitehead's 125C # 10C at the International Trophy Silverstone 1950.
But Tanner-Nye in their Ferrari book say Whitehead with Thin Wall Special. Based on the bodywork only potential possibility could be TWS # 1, which Whitehead may have seen, but never drove. Egon Thurner's remark on this - and other mistakes - "You buy a bible only to find out it's just another novel".
#14
nichotj
-
- 538 posts
- Joined: March 01
Member
Posted 13 July 2001 - 11:56
Originally posted by Barry Lake
Ursula
And, speaking of spell check, has anyone noticed how careless proof reading has become in some areas, where you can tell they've used spell check and rely on it 100 per cent.
All those "that"s instead of "than"s and vice versa, as just a small example. If the mistaken word is still a word - though not the correct one - it doesn't get a red line under it. And then the lazy proof reader goes right on past it.
Hi Barry,
Try this through your spell checker!
Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.
Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.
As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.
Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.
Tim
#15
Michael Müller
-
- 1,181 posts
- Joined: November 00
Member
Posted 13 July 2001 - 13:41
The first thing I did with WORD was to pull out the plug of this bloody spell checker...!
#16
Gil Bouffard
-
- 597 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 13 July 2001 - 20:10
Barry,
Back in June, I inaugurated a thread called, "Beware the uninformed media weaners."
(probably should have spelled it "weeners" or even "wieners")
I was reading the "Rearview," Section of the June 21 2001 issue of AutoSport the other day.
The personality for the week was Tony Brooks. As I read along I was struck by the following two statements:
"Driving an Aston Martin DB35, Brooks and Peter Collins took the car to third overall
at Goodwood and then, in only his second ever race abroad, he won the Syracuse Grand Prix in a works Connaught."
Not the DB3S as I always thought? Oh well I'm sure that other people will be caught out and use the DB35 as a real vehicle.
Further on, in a discussion of his win for Vanwall at the Nurburgring in 1958, the writer states about Peter Collins' accident:
"Collins had clipped the Nurburgring bank in his Ferrari at more than 100 mph and died from head injuries as a result."
Obviously this person has never seen the Nurburgring of 1958 or even 1981! The "Nurburgring bank?" Which one? Turn One? Turn Two? Maybe turn 135...
Just a little research could help..
The Auto Racing Curmudgeon.
This next message was actually the first of a bunch.
I receive Autosport.com email updates and after a recent spate of goofs I sent the guy that "runs," the thing the following comments.
"Steve,
Do you guys just post the stuff or do you read it first...
Below are examples of "Spellcheckerotosis," (reliance on the spell checker to do your work for you) and poor grammar. And you guys claim to have invented the language.
(1) David Coulthard and Mika Hakkinen are set to extend their record-braking partnership at McLaren-Mercedes next year. The pairing (partnership?) is already the longest-lasting in the history of Grand Prix racing.
(2) Mika Hakkinen knows he must start winning if he's to keep his feint (faint) hopes of a third world title alive, and McLaren's Finnish ace proved he's up for the challenge by topping the second of Friday's free practice sessions for the European Grand Prix at the Nurburgring.
Have a lovely day....and get you CV ready."
Of course, you know I got no reply
Gil
Now you have brought it up again…
When it comes to captions, both Don Capps and I hope, Dennis David, look at the helmet and other physical attributes of the driver. In most of the pre-high sided cockpit surround days, you could recognize the drivers by their shirts; how they held their hands; whether they "hunched," over the wheel or not; the types of goggles or face shield they wore; the color of their helmet (even in a B/W photo); their facial expression…..
Today, with the drivers encased in the car, the TV guys can’t even tell the difference between Michael Schumacher and Rubens Barrichello, or Ralf Schumacher from Juan Pablo Montoya. Those of us who were educated to recognize driver’s helmets can tell you who is driving what car.
Historical inaccuracies are perpetuated by caption writers and are not fixed by authors or anybody.
I hold in my hand a book published for Motorsport, called Four Wheel Drift. Mike Lawrence was the editor. He starts off by stating that this book is the first in a series. As the book was published in 1994, I guess the series never got past the first book.
Anyway, on page 76 is a photo of Tommy Sopwith driving, "a Sphinx, a rebodied Allard J2X with a 200bhp 3.4 lire Armstrong-Siddeley engine."
On page 134, we find a picture of a Cooper Monaco driven by Jack Brabham and identified as Roy Salvadori.
On page 60, a photo of Mike Hawthorn at Reims in 1953 shows him clearly in front of another Ferrari (most likely Farina) but identified as Fangio in a Maserati.
There was one fact of history that I wasn’t aware of..The Goodwood Chicane was first built in 1952.
Gil
Back in June, I inaugurated a thread called, "Beware the uninformed media weaners."
(probably should have spelled it "weeners" or even "wieners")
I was reading the "Rearview," Section of the June 21 2001 issue of AutoSport the other day.
The personality for the week was Tony Brooks. As I read along I was struck by the following two statements:
"Driving an Aston Martin DB35, Brooks and Peter Collins took the car to third overall
at Goodwood and then, in only his second ever race abroad, he won the Syracuse Grand Prix in a works Connaught."
Not the DB3S as I always thought? Oh well I'm sure that other people will be caught out and use the DB35 as a real vehicle.
Further on, in a discussion of his win for Vanwall at the Nurburgring in 1958, the writer states about Peter Collins' accident:
"Collins had clipped the Nurburgring bank in his Ferrari at more than 100 mph and died from head injuries as a result."
Obviously this person has never seen the Nurburgring of 1958 or even 1981! The "Nurburgring bank?" Which one? Turn One? Turn Two? Maybe turn 135...
Just a little research could help..
The Auto Racing Curmudgeon.
This next message was actually the first of a bunch.
I receive Autosport.com email updates and after a recent spate of goofs I sent the guy that "runs," the thing the following comments.
"Steve,
Do you guys just post the stuff or do you read it first...
Below are examples of "Spellcheckerotosis," (reliance on the spell checker to do your work for you) and poor grammar. And you guys claim to have invented the language.
(1) David Coulthard and Mika Hakkinen are set to extend their record-braking partnership at McLaren-Mercedes next year. The pairing (partnership?) is already the longest-lasting in the history of Grand Prix racing.
(2) Mika Hakkinen knows he must start winning if he's to keep his feint (faint) hopes of a third world title alive, and McLaren's Finnish ace proved he's up for the challenge by topping the second of Friday's free practice sessions for the European Grand Prix at the Nurburgring.
Have a lovely day....and get you CV ready."
Of course, you know I got no reply
Gil
Now you have brought it up again…
When it comes to captions, both Don Capps and I hope, Dennis David, look at the helmet and other physical attributes of the driver. In most of the pre-high sided cockpit surround days, you could recognize the drivers by their shirts; how they held their hands; whether they "hunched," over the wheel or not; the types of goggles or face shield they wore; the color of their helmet (even in a B/W photo); their facial expression…..
Today, with the drivers encased in the car, the TV guys can’t even tell the difference between Michael Schumacher and Rubens Barrichello, or Ralf Schumacher from Juan Pablo Montoya. Those of us who were educated to recognize driver’s helmets can tell you who is driving what car.
Historical inaccuracies are perpetuated by caption writers and are not fixed by authors or anybody.
I hold in my hand a book published for Motorsport, called Four Wheel Drift. Mike Lawrence was the editor. He starts off by stating that this book is the first in a series. As the book was published in 1994, I guess the series never got past the first book.
Anyway, on page 76 is a photo of Tommy Sopwith driving, "a Sphinx, a rebodied Allard J2X with a 200bhp 3.4 lire Armstrong-Siddeley engine."
On page 134, we find a picture of a Cooper Monaco driven by Jack Brabham and identified as Roy Salvadori.
On page 60, a photo of Mike Hawthorn at Reims in 1953 shows him clearly in front of another Ferrari (most likely Farina) but identified as Fangio in a Maserati.
There was one fact of history that I wasn’t aware of..The Goodwood Chicane was first built in 1952.
Gil
#17
Hans Etzrodt
-
- 3,188 posts
- Joined: July 00
Member
Posted 13 July 2001 - 23:47
The picture was taken at the 1953 French GP and shows Hawthorn leading Villoresi. I was able to identify both cars with the help of Stefan Örnerdal's wonderful site at <http://user.tninet.s...1w/F2_Index.htm>, which puts all the other F1 sites to shame...Originally posted by Gil Bouffard
.....On page 60, a photo of Mike Hawthorn at Reims in 1953 shows him clearly in front of another Ferrari (most likely Farina) but identified as Fangio in a Maserati....
...because of his superior layout and showing starting numbers when known. This is some basic information, which you can find even in Leif's site about the races of the Golden Thirties at <http://www.kolumbus.fi/leif.snellman/>. Is there a valid reason why the F1 sites do not show starting numbers or is it pure laziness?
#18
Gil Bouffard
-
- 597 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 14 July 2001 - 00:42
Hans,
I do the same sort of thing.. You are able to tell the the fact that the cars (Hawthorn's and Villoresi's) are properly in sequence to be on the same team.
The first thing to give it away was the similarity of the body shape. I wasn't that interested in who the driver was as much as I knew who it wasn't.
El Curmudgeonista,
I do the same sort of thing.. You are able to tell the the fact that the cars (Hawthorn's and Villoresi's) are properly in sequence to be on the same team.
The first thing to give it away was the similarity of the body shape. I wasn't that interested in who the driver was as much as I knew who it wasn't.
El Curmudgeonista,
#19
David McKinney
-
- 14,156 posts
- Joined: November 00
Member
Posted 14 July 2001 - 06:15
Hans
I suspect that people interested in identifying specific cars, a group which would include model-makers and perhaps chassis-number nuts, like to have race numbers to help identify pictures.
My own (personal) records never mention race numbers, as I don't need them. What I care about is that Fangio was driving a 250F Maserati in a certain race, and won. Whether he was carring No.1 or No.44 makes not the slightest difference to what I want to know.
Presumably this is the thinking applied by some of the websites you complain about.
I suspect that people interested in identifying specific cars, a group which would include model-makers and perhaps chassis-number nuts, like to have race numbers to help identify pictures.
My own (personal) records never mention race numbers, as I don't need them. What I care about is that Fangio was driving a 250F Maserati in a certain race, and won. Whether he was carring No.1 or No.44 makes not the slightest difference to what I want to know.
Presumably this is the thinking applied by some of the websites you complain about.
Advertisement
#20
fines
-
- 9,647 posts
- Joined: September 00
Member
Posted 14 July 2001 - 09:32
Hans, the results on my website will include starting numbers. I'm working backwards from 1974, and the 1973 results will appear within this or next month. At this rate, I'll get to the year 1953 in about... well, 40 years. Can you wait for that? 
#21
Hans Etzrodt
-
- 3,188 posts
- Joined: July 00
Member
Posted 14 July 2001 - 09:41
I would be over 100 then, so probably won't see your update, unless I live that long. 
#22
fines
-
- 9,647 posts
- Joined: September 00
Member
Posted 14 July 2001 - 09:52
We all hope you do! (because we need people like you...)
#24
Barry Lake
-
- 2,169 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 15 July 2001 - 09:16
Originally posted by Marco94
Or Barry's postings. Is it "proof reading" or "proof-reading."
Marco
You had to ask! The explanation might make you wish you hadn't.
Hyphens are a great point of discussion on magazines and newspapers. The modern tendency is to avoid hyphens at all cost. Art directors think they make copy look "untidy" on a page layout.
My preference is to put them in where I feel they make the sentence more easily understood; leave them out where they do not seem to be necessary.
My son Gavin, when working as a production editor/proof reader independently came to the same conclusion.
I asked him to read my post and to comment on it. He said that was about the way he would have treated it.
"However," he said, "If I thought the editor or the readers might not understand the reason for this, and therefore believe only that I had made a mistake or was inconsistent, then I might leave the hyphen out of all of them.
"On the other hand, if I had to do it one way or the other and the choice was mine, I would prefer to have them all hyphenated rather than not hyphenated."
Which is about what I feel. I put them in where it "feels right" to me. If it is for publication, the sub-editor usually will remove them anyway.
It reminds me of a Charlie Brown comic strip I once saw.
Charlie's young sister, Sally, asks if Charlie thinks her school essay reads OK, adding, when he had finished reading it:
"You don't think I should sprinkle around some of those squiggly things do you?"
"You mean commas?" says Charlie.
"Whatever", she shrugs.
#25
mhferrari
-
- 3,238 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 15 July 2001 - 16:33
The Power Game by Ivan Rendall, is a fine example of a book with plenty of mistakes. Not to mention how he makes Enzo Ferrari and the team like they are the definition of evil.
He captioned one picture of the Senna-Prost incident as occuring in 1991.
He said someone could win the championship if he won the final race, even though the man was 14 points behind (with really two rounds to go).
On some occasions it occured to me that why was I trusting what was written, as he failed to mention races and I had to use the Encyclopedia of Formula One to reference results in order to make sure some things that were written were correct.
It's a shame, as I live in the United States, where any Formula One book is hard to obtain and is purchased at great cost.
He captioned one picture of the Senna-Prost incident as occuring in 1991.
He said someone could win the championship if he won the final race, even though the man was 14 points behind (with really two rounds to go).
On some occasions it occured to me that why was I trusting what was written, as he failed to mention races and I had to use the Encyclopedia of Formula One to reference results in order to make sure some things that were written were correct.
It's a shame, as I live in the United States, where any Formula One book is hard to obtain and is purchased at great cost.
#26
David McKinney
-
- 14,156 posts
- Joined: November 00
Member
Posted 15 July 2001 - 17:22
Barry,
I think this is a losing battle.
To me it is quite obvious that you should write that a person is 26 years old, or that he is a 26-year-old person. Yet increasingly over the years newspapers and magazines overlook common rules of English grammar and syntax, so that you now almost always see "he was 26-years-old". Just doesn't make sense!
The other thing that seems to confuse people would be easily understood if schools returned to teaching even the simplest grammatical rules, such as parts of speech, so that writers could recognise the difference between a noun and an adjective. For example:
The car has drive to all four wheels
It has four-wheel drive
It is a four-wheel-drive car
The invariable response to drawing this to anyone's attention is "it's not important. Everyone knows what I mean".
As I said, a losing battle.
I think this is a losing battle.
To me it is quite obvious that you should write that a person is 26 years old, or that he is a 26-year-old person. Yet increasingly over the years newspapers and magazines overlook common rules of English grammar and syntax, so that you now almost always see "he was 26-years-old". Just doesn't make sense!
The other thing that seems to confuse people would be easily understood if schools returned to teaching even the simplest grammatical rules, such as parts of speech, so that writers could recognise the difference between a noun and an adjective. For example:
The car has drive to all four wheels
It has four-wheel drive
It is a four-wheel-drive car
The invariable response to drawing this to anyone's attention is "it's not important. Everyone knows what I mean".
As I said, a losing battle.
#27
Don Capps
-
- 5,933 posts
- Joined: May 99
Member
Posted 16 July 2001 - 01:39
The Surest Sign that the Apocalypse is Here: "Whatever....you know..."
#28
Barry Lake
-
- 2,169 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 16 July 2001 - 02:57
David McKinney
Thank you for your clarification on hyphens. I know I would always understand anything you write.
Which brings me to a problem I have with modern day magazines. They want contributors to write what they call "clever and witty" prose. What I wish to write is something that tells the reader what he or she wants to know, without their having to read every sentence twice.
When I started writing I used to get my wife to read what I had written. I asked her to put a pencil mark beside every part she had to read more than once, or couldn't understand at all.
Then I would re-write it until she could easily understand it.
Later, as my children grew older (maybe 10 or 12), I would get them to read it for the same purpose.
I have found that people who concentrate on writing "flowery" prose have more errors of fact than those who don't. Which is a variation on the old "Don't let the facts stand in the way of a good story".
It could be re-written, "Don't let the facts stand in the way of a clever phrase, clause or sentence."
I believe that articles and books are similar to movies. There are those intended purely to entertain and to hell with reality, and there are those whose purpose is to inform.
The latter can be "dry" at times, but if the information is accurate, the subject is interesting, and the words (and pictures) are easily absorbed, I personally find it far more entertaining.
Thank you for your clarification on hyphens. I know I would always understand anything you write.
Which brings me to a problem I have with modern day magazines. They want contributors to write what they call "clever and witty" prose. What I wish to write is something that tells the reader what he or she wants to know, without their having to read every sentence twice.
When I started writing I used to get my wife to read what I had written. I asked her to put a pencil mark beside every part she had to read more than once, or couldn't understand at all.
Then I would re-write it until she could easily understand it.
Later, as my children grew older (maybe 10 or 12), I would get them to read it for the same purpose.
I have found that people who concentrate on writing "flowery" prose have more errors of fact than those who don't. Which is a variation on the old "Don't let the facts stand in the way of a good story".
It could be re-written, "Don't let the facts stand in the way of a clever phrase, clause or sentence."
I believe that articles and books are similar to movies. There are those intended purely to entertain and to hell with reality, and there are those whose purpose is to inform.
The latter can be "dry" at times, but if the information is accurate, the subject is interesting, and the words (and pictures) are easily absorbed, I personally find it far more entertaining.
#29
Hans Etzrodt
-
- 3,188 posts
- Joined: July 00
Member
Posted 16 July 2001 - 03:51
Keep it up, lads and mates.
I am absorbing all of this like a sponge. I need such kind of training ground to learn how to write and to lose the German accent from my posts. Soon after I have completed my list of Mountain Climb Winners 1897-1949, I have a few topics for stories and a small book if I should find a publisher. I hope that my English language skills will have improved by then.
I am absorbing all of this like a sponge. I need such kind of training ground to learn how to write and to lose the German accent from my posts. Soon after I have completed my list of Mountain Climb Winners 1897-1949, I have a few topics for stories and a small book if I should find a publisher. I hope that my English language skills will have improved by then.
#30
UAtkins
-
- 228 posts
- Joined: January 01
Member
Posted 16 July 2001 - 05:04
Hans, your English skills are a lot better than many people whose native tongue is English. My Mum was Swiss, I always remember helping her with her English and after my Dad died, helping her with her letters to solicitors, banks, etc. It has given me an appreciation of how curious a language English is and how difficult it is to learn. I am pleased that the current trend in writing is toward a more simple and less "flowery/formal" style
The one thing I have learned going from being educated and living in England until I was 17 and then living in the U.S. since then, the English language is constantly changing. I have always worked in administrative positions and so have had to go through all the changes in grammar and word usage. I am still fluent in both English and American English (as I think of it) and am constantly translating for my husband and others to catch the latest slang terms and idioms that are totally different between the two countries. I catch myself spelling the word color when I'm at work and colour when I am emailing my friends in England, it's automatic to me. I also find that if I am honestly not sure what the correct usage something is, I work on the principle that as long as I'm consistent the recipient will start to wonder just who is right! I also truly believe that engineers can make up more words than any other profession!
Don't stop writing!
Ursula
The one thing I have learned going from being educated and living in England until I was 17 and then living in the U.S. since then, the English language is constantly changing. I have always worked in administrative positions and so have had to go through all the changes in grammar and word usage. I am still fluent in both English and American English (as I think of it) and am constantly translating for my husband and others to catch the latest slang terms and idioms that are totally different between the two countries. I catch myself spelling the word color when I'm at work and colour when I am emailing my friends in England, it's automatic to me. I also find that if I am honestly not sure what the correct usage something is, I work on the principle that as long as I'm consistent the recipient will start to wonder just who is right! I also truly believe that engineers can make up more words than any other profession!
Don't stop writing!
Ursula
#31
Darren Galpin
-
- 2,321 posts
- Joined: April 00
Member
Posted 16 July 2001 - 06:58
Ursula - its not new words they invent, its three-letter acronyms (have I got the hyphenation correct) - or TLA's as they are known. The manual beside me is riddled with them. And the standards of English around here......... (and I mean at work, not the Forum - many of our esteemed non UK colleagues have better written English than some of my work colleagues who are English).
#32
Marco94
-
- 393 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 16 July 2001 - 08:18
Ursula,
Try learning Dutch. It changes fairly rapidly as well, although it will have less risk of cross breeding like there is with US and UK English. However, Dutch is very inconsistent. For instance it is difficult to decide if words need to be strung together or not. We have the saying: "If it's English, write it seperately and if it's German string it together." Seems to work fine for those languages, but not for Dutch. Oh, well...
Try learning Dutch. It changes fairly rapidly as well, although it will have less risk of cross breeding like there is with US and UK English. However, Dutch is very inconsistent. For instance it is difficult to decide if words need to be strung together or not. We have the saying: "If it's English, write it seperately and if it's German string it together." Seems to work fine for those languages, but not for Dutch. Oh, well...
#33
Barry Lake
-
- 2,169 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 16 July 2001 - 15:39
Has anyone else noticed a worrying trend in English (American?) to string words together?
Sportscar, motorsport - just for a start. I am too tired to think of more at the moment, but all will have seen them, particularly on the Web and Internet.
I had been thinking recently, that is probably how the Germans started. It might just be that they have been at it longer than English-speaking people.
Sportscar, motorsport - just for a start. I am too tired to think of more at the moment, but all will have seen them, particularly on the Web and Internet.
I had been thinking recently, that is probably how the Germans started. It might just be that they have been at it longer than English-speaking people.
#34
Dave Ware
-
- 998 posts
- Joined: March 00
Member
Posted 16 July 2001 - 16:23
>>It has four-wheel drive
>>It is a four-wheel-drive car
These are correct, because the rule states that if you have multiple-word adverbs or adjectives, and you cannot take away one word without changing the meaning, then you use hyphens.
"He drove a two-year-old car to victory."
But you wouldn't say:
"He drove a two year car to victory."
Dave
>>It is a four-wheel-drive car
These are correct, because the rule states that if you have multiple-word adverbs or adjectives, and you cannot take away one word without changing the meaning, then you use hyphens.
"He drove a two-year-old car to victory."
But you wouldn't say:
"He drove a two year car to victory."
Dave
#35
Gil Bouffard
-
- 597 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 17 July 2001 - 02:17
The American language has some rather bad flat spots. Flat spots to me are words like "pre-owned or as it is sometimes spelled preowned. He heard a guy say that he had been pre-hired while attending school. Pre anything gets me going. You cannot pre-board an airplane! You have to wait until the airplane is at the ramp!
Of course, we also use former and defending in the wrong place.
Someone on Judge Judy said that she and her friend were "conversating."
Instead of going on vacation or holiday we now recreate (as in recreation).
I go nuts hearing someone saying I, myself or you yourself. Not being able to ongo or never having ongone, I don't accept ongoing as a word.
I myself wish that you yourselves wouldn't get these topics going without prewarning me so that I myself could not prelook at it.
A defending and current former teacher in retirement
The curmudgeonly Goofster
Of course, we also use former and defending in the wrong place.
Someone on Judge Judy said that she and her friend were "conversating."
Instead of going on vacation or holiday we now recreate (as in recreation).
I go nuts hearing someone saying I, myself or you yourself. Not being able to ongo or never having ongone, I don't accept ongoing as a word.
I myself wish that you yourselves wouldn't get these topics going without prewarning me so that I myself could not prelook at it.
A defending and current former teacher in retirement
The curmudgeonly Goofster
#36
Barry Lake
-
- 2,169 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 17 July 2001 - 02:20
Many moons ago I worked as a mechanic for the Morgan Distributor in Sydney (and raced against him in F2 cars on the weekends!).
At morning tea time he used to read the classified ads in the newspaper and, merely by altering where he paused, he could totally change the meaning of the ad. Always funny, sometimes it was hilarious.
It's worth trying some time, if you haven't done it before. It also works with sentences that should really have hyphens, but do not. Often, by pausing where the hyphen normally would be, you can totally change the meaning of the sentence. This is, I assume, why hyphens were invented in the first place.
With such a sentence, you might be fortunate and read it the way it was intended first time (usually easy when it is a subject you know well). On other occasions, you might get totally the wrong meaning and have to back-track to read it again. (Or you might have to track back and read it again.)
At morning tea time he used to read the classified ads in the newspaper and, merely by altering where he paused, he could totally change the meaning of the ad. Always funny, sometimes it was hilarious.
It's worth trying some time, if you haven't done it before. It also works with sentences that should really have hyphens, but do not. Often, by pausing where the hyphen normally would be, you can totally change the meaning of the sentence. This is, I assume, why hyphens were invented in the first place.
With such a sentence, you might be fortunate and read it the way it was intended first time (usually easy when it is a subject you know well). On other occasions, you might get totally the wrong meaning and have to back-track to read it again. (Or you might have to track back and read it again.)
#37
Roger Clark
-
- 7,506 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 17 July 2001 - 05:25
I understand that Hakkinen as resigned, or is that re-signed?
#38
David McKinney
-
- 14,156 posts
- Joined: November 00
Member
Posted 17 July 2001 - 05:31
Enjoyed your comments, Gil. A common ploy seems to be the indiscriminate invention of verbs from nouns, as in conversating. It's not unique to America. In the UK the word 'burlglarise" can be heard in some circles, used no doubt by people who don't realise that "burglar" is an extension of the verb "to burgle". In another few years we'll no doubt be hearing about burglarisers, and then further down the line about houses being burglarisered. After that....
#39
Barry Lake
-
- 2,169 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 17 July 2001 - 05:41
Originally posted by Roger Clark
I understand that Hakkinen has resigned, or is that re-signed?
Roger
You took the words right out of my mouth. I have been waiting for the headline "Hakkinen re-signs!".
If Mika does give up F1 driving and becomes, say, a snow skier, would that mean he had become a re-creation of himself, or would it simply be recreation?
Advertisement
#40
Barry Boor
-
- 11,549 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 17 July 2001 - 06:19
It is remarkable, is it not, what can develop from a mis-captioned (ugh!) picture in an old book.
#41
Catalina Park
-
- 6,774 posts
- Joined: July 01
Member
Posted 17 July 2001 - 11:20
To Barry Lake.
Did you see the add for the Ford Zeffer in the Daily Telegraph the other day.
Did you see the add for the Ford Zeffer in the Daily Telegraph the other day.
#42
Vitesse2
-
- 41,859 posts
- Joined: April 01
Administrator
Posted 17 July 2001 - 11:58
I posted this in Gil's similar thread, but I think it deserves a second airing:
On page 118 of the August 2001 issue of F1 Racing, self-described as "The World's Bestselling Formula 1 Magazine" there is a photograph which accompanies a fairly bland and dull article about Cliff Allison (how can you make Cliff Allison dull?). The caption reads as follows:
"Monaco has changed since '61, but it's still recognisable. Allison came 8th in a Lotus-engined UDT"
Words fail me ....
And on Sunday, I was horrified to hear Murray Walker describe the 1950 British GP as "the first Formula 1 race". AAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!
On page 118 of the August 2001 issue of F1 Racing, self-described as "The World's Bestselling Formula 1 Magazine" there is a photograph which accompanies a fairly bland and dull article about Cliff Allison (how can you make Cliff Allison dull?). The caption reads as follows:
"Monaco has changed since '61, but it's still recognisable. Allison came 8th in a Lotus-engined UDT"
Words fail me ....
And on Sunday, I was horrified to hear Murray Walker describe the 1950 British GP as "the first Formula 1 race". AAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!
#43
Gil Bouffard
-
- 597 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 17 July 2001 - 18:40
This may well be my final comment.
The New Scientist piece triggered a long lost recollection.
Back when I was working in the defense industry, I approached our engineering program manager with the suggestion that we install a grammarian program on our computers.
This was after seeing some of the most atrocious grammar and spelling errors in "finished product," reports released to our customer.
His answer was. "Why should we? We all graduated school. We know how to write."
I said. "That's the problem. You all know how to write, just not well."
I don't work there anymore..
Curmudgeonly Yours
Gil:up:
BTW maybe they should do to Murray, what ABC did to Bobby Unser and Sam Posey. Provide them with prepared adlibs. Posey's famous comment about Emerson Fittipaldi's last name having too many letters for him to win the Indianapolis 500, stands out.
The New Scientist piece triggered a long lost recollection.
Back when I was working in the defense industry, I approached our engineering program manager with the suggestion that we install a grammarian program on our computers.
This was after seeing some of the most atrocious grammar and spelling errors in "finished product," reports released to our customer.
His answer was. "Why should we? We all graduated school. We know how to write."
I said. "That's the problem. You all know how to write, just not well."
I don't work there anymore..
Curmudgeonly Yours
Gil:up:
BTW maybe they should do to Murray, what ABC did to Bobby Unser and Sam Posey. Provide them with prepared adlibs. Posey's famous comment about Emerson Fittipaldi's last name having too many letters for him to win the Indianapolis 500, stands out.
#44
Carlos Jalife
-
- 322 posts
- Joined: April 01
Member
Posted 17 July 2001 - 21:11
Great thread here guys, but why don't we set up a place or something where we can report all those mistakes. I have compiled a few dozens in books I am reading, mostly about the rodrìguez since there are a lot of problems with data but even guys like nye and Alan Henry who are supposed to be the best writers have any mistakes. Take the F1 Drivers book by Alan and he has lots of mistakes but he talks at length about stuff I don't personally care about instead of getting to the racing facts. No wonder among his bibliography we have something called Burks peerage (or something like that, I could care less). But of course he doesn't know ho many races rebaque ran in F1 (the number is wrong), and he hgets it worng even for guys like Tim Parnell, who could be more british than that? And in Tanner's bible, there are many mistakes, some of them typos I agree but others are just plain wrong. So why don't we post them someplace or have someone make a list like the one about dead drivers that should be growing, we had a casulaty this weekend here in Mexico. Any takers? And excuse my mistakes for now, but I certainly hope we don't find many, if any, in the Rodrìguez book (s).
#45
FLB
-
- 29,675 posts
- Joined: February 01
Member
Posted 17 July 2001 - 21:29
Vic Wilson was missing altogether in the 1992 edition of Henry's Grand-Prix: Driver by Driver
There are sooo many typos in Court's Grand-Prix Requiem that it would take an hour to write them in a post (a PSL book no less).
In the 1991 edition of Nye's Autocourse History of the Grand-Prix Car, 1966-91, the 1991 paragraph for the Williams section looks like a hack cut-and-paste job, with facts from other years sprinkled here and there in the middle.
There are sooo many typos in Court's Grand-Prix Requiem that it would take an hour to write them in a post (a PSL book no less).
In the 1991 edition of Nye's Autocourse History of the Grand-Prix Car, 1966-91, the 1991 paragraph for the Williams section looks like a hack cut-and-paste job, with facts from other years sprinkled here and there in the middle.
#46
Vitesse2
-
- 41,859 posts
- Joined: April 01
Administrator
Posted 18 July 2001 - 11:43
Carlos & Captain Cook: there's only one problem with this - we'd need a whole new bulletin board to cope with it!!
I think most of us could come up with dozens of mistakes, misidentifications and factual errors, but unless it was properly indexed and organised it would be impossible to find anything.
I think most of us could come up with dozens of mistakes, misidentifications and factual errors, but unless it was properly indexed and organised it would be impossible to find anything.
#47
Barry Lake
-
- 2,169 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 18 July 2001 - 13:30
I have to say I like the idea of putting corrections to books all together on a list somewhere - properly inexed, as you say.
What a valuable research tool!
I think you would have to stick to books that generally are regarded as quality research material. We all know the "pot boilers" are full of mistakes.
But books that we all might use for research at some time - and which could mislead any one of us... I think it would be great to have corrections by a bunch of experts such as we have here.
Anyone volunteering to oversee the task?
Oh, and no Catalina Park, I missed the Zeffer. But I am not too disappointed, it probably jumped out of second gear anyway.
By the way, do I know you?
What a valuable research tool!
I think you would have to stick to books that generally are regarded as quality research material. We all know the "pot boilers" are full of mistakes.
But books that we all might use for research at some time - and which could mislead any one of us... I think it would be great to have corrections by a bunch of experts such as we have here.
Anyone volunteering to oversee the task?
Oh, and no Catalina Park, I missed the Zeffer. But I am not too disappointed, it probably jumped out of second gear anyway.
By the way, do I know you?
#48
Paul Medici
-
- 441 posts
- Joined: August 99
Member
Posted 19 July 2001 - 19:33
Barry,
May I change to topic slightly to "How does this happen ...TO ME?"
For several years I have written articles for a car club journal as a hobby. I just think it's fun to be able to contribute something and it's good fun to get 'published.'
Readers number around 5K and are for the most part quite focused on the history off their marque. In fact it can be a daunting experience when you realize that some members have forgotten more than you will ever know, or that they own the historic racing car your are writing about.
One rule I have is to avoid chassis numbers. Of course I might deviate from that rule when I am absolutely sure. But why? To show off? There a dozens of folks out there that know more about Ferrari chassis numbers than I will ever know.
In an eariler article I was absolutley positive that the 1962 330TRI LeMans winner was #0808, but found out later that it began life as a 250 Testa Rossa #0780TR in 1960. Go figure....
The focus of my post is a manuscript I submitted about the early racing career of Phil Hill. It begins with the dirt tracks of southern California and ends with his first major international victory at the Grand Prix of Sweden (for sports-racing cars.)
A few weeks after distribution I got a call from the Publications Chair. who said that Phil Hill had telephoned. Now I have spoken with Phil on a couple of occasions at club events and knew that he is the kind of person who would say something nice about my article. However ALL I heard was, "he said he won in SWEDEN in 1956 NOT 1957:o
I was destroyed.
How does this happen.... TOO ME?
I KNEW it was 1956!
After awhile I think I figured it out. I didn't do at least one check of everything, even the stuff I thought I was sure of.
Now, there are certain races and dates that most of us will never forget. Fangio-'Ring-1957, Moss-Monaco-1961, Gurney-Spa-1967, and so on.. For whatever reason I was sure it was 1957, and now I was about to leave town and change my name.
That night at dinner I was crying in my Martini and speaking quite seriously to myself. Banned for life from the editorial staff, excluded from club events, and if not that, how could I show my face at the next track event?
I looked up at Becky, and saw that all too familiar "LIGHTEN UP" expression on her face.
"Hey Paul, at least now you know Phil Hill reads your stuff."
YES, I thought! .......... and all was right with the world.
Sorry for rambling on..
Best regards,PJM
May I change to topic slightly to "How does this happen ...TO ME?"
For several years I have written articles for a car club journal as a hobby. I just think it's fun to be able to contribute something and it's good fun to get 'published.'
Readers number around 5K and are for the most part quite focused on the history off their marque. In fact it can be a daunting experience when you realize that some members have forgotten more than you will ever know, or that they own the historic racing car your are writing about.
One rule I have is to avoid chassis numbers. Of course I might deviate from that rule when I am absolutely sure. But why? To show off? There a dozens of folks out there that know more about Ferrari chassis numbers than I will ever know.
In an eariler article I was absolutley positive that the 1962 330TRI LeMans winner was #0808, but found out later that it began life as a 250 Testa Rossa #0780TR in 1960. Go figure....
The focus of my post is a manuscript I submitted about the early racing career of Phil Hill. It begins with the dirt tracks of southern California and ends with his first major international victory at the Grand Prix of Sweden (for sports-racing cars.)
A few weeks after distribution I got a call from the Publications Chair. who said that Phil Hill had telephoned. Now I have spoken with Phil on a couple of occasions at club events and knew that he is the kind of person who would say something nice about my article. However ALL I heard was, "he said he won in SWEDEN in 1956 NOT 1957:o
I was destroyed.
How does this happen.... TOO ME?
I KNEW it was 1956!
After awhile I think I figured it out. I didn't do at least one check of everything, even the stuff I thought I was sure of.
Now, there are certain races and dates that most of us will never forget. Fangio-'Ring-1957, Moss-Monaco-1961, Gurney-Spa-1967, and so on.. For whatever reason I was sure it was 1957, and now I was about to leave town and change my name.
That night at dinner I was crying in my Martini and speaking quite seriously to myself. Banned for life from the editorial staff, excluded from club events, and if not that, how could I show my face at the next track event?
I looked up at Becky, and saw that all too familiar "LIGHTEN UP" expression on her face.
"Hey Paul, at least now you know Phil Hill reads your stuff."
YES, I thought! .......... and all was right with the world.
Sorry for rambling on..
Best regards,PJM
#49
Barry Boor
-
- 11,549 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 31 December 2005 - 22:09
Rather than open a new thread, I wonder if I can solve a minor problem while alerting people to a mis-captioned picture.
You see, I have a spare 250.TR Ferrari sports car (don't get excited, it's only 43rd scale) and I want to repaint it to represent the Dan Gurney/Bruce Kessler car from Le Mans 1958. Deep in my memory banks, I recalled a picture of Paul Frere's Porsche passing/being passed by the aforementioned Ferrari in his book 'Starting Grid to Chequered Flag'.
The reason I have a spare Ferrari is that I have just picked up a second model of the Hugus/Erickson Ferrari from the same race. Not a stupid thing to do - my original has damaged blue stripes and needs replacing.
Imagine my surprise when I looked at the picture I remembered in the book, only to find that although the caption says it is the Gurney/Kessler car, it is actually #22, the Hugus/Erickson car.
So, a mistake in the captioning but it don't help me none, because I cannot find a single picture of the #18 NART car.
The ironic thing is that models are around of nos. 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22 - indeed, I have the last 4 in that list. But I can find no record of a model of #18, nor indeed any pictures.
Any ideas anybody?
You see, I have a spare 250.TR Ferrari sports car (don't get excited, it's only 43rd scale) and I want to repaint it to represent the Dan Gurney/Bruce Kessler car from Le Mans 1958. Deep in my memory banks, I recalled a picture of Paul Frere's Porsche passing/being passed by the aforementioned Ferrari in his book 'Starting Grid to Chequered Flag'.
The reason I have a spare Ferrari is that I have just picked up a second model of the Hugus/Erickson Ferrari from the same race. Not a stupid thing to do - my original has damaged blue stripes and needs replacing.
Imagine my surprise when I looked at the picture I remembered in the book, only to find that although the caption says it is the Gurney/Kessler car, it is actually #22, the Hugus/Erickson car.
So, a mistake in the captioning but it don't help me none, because I cannot find a single picture of the #18 NART car.
The ironic thing is that models are around of nos. 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22 - indeed, I have the last 4 in that list. But I can find no record of a model of #18, nor indeed any pictures.
Any ideas anybody?
#50
helioseism
-
- 1,429 posts
- Joined: December 05
Member
Posted 31 December 2005 - 23:27
Barry --
Found three pictures of #18 in the '58 Le Mans:
Page 38 of "Ferraris At Le Mans" by Pascal
Page 315 of Vol. 1 of "24 Heures Du Mans 1923-1992" by Moity, Tessedre & Bienvenu
Page 50 of "Ferrari 250 Testa Rossa" by Carrieri.
They are all black & white.
Let me know if you want me to scan them and e-mail them to you. I'm a little shy of posting them due to copyright issues.
Found three pictures of #18 in the '58 Le Mans:
Page 38 of "Ferraris At Le Mans" by Pascal
Page 315 of Vol. 1 of "24 Heures Du Mans 1923-1992" by Moity, Tessedre & Bienvenu
Page 50 of "Ferrari 250 Testa Rossa" by Carrieri.
They are all black & white.
Let me know if you want me to scan them and e-mail them to you. I'm a little shy of posting them due to copyright issues.
