108 replies to this topic

[Jungle Boy]

Does anybody have some good pictures of Rindt's #22 Lotus 49C from that fatefull weekend at Monza? I searched both the forum archives and google and still don't have a decent picture. If you have any I would appreceate you sharing them with me.

Thanks.

[philippe7]

Jungle Boy

Give me your e-mail adress by using the PM function, and I'll send you a picture of that N°22 Lotus at full speed , without wings.....


Oh and by the way.....it was a 72 , not a 49C .......

[Stefan Schmidt]

Originally posted by Jungle Boy
Does anybody have some good pictures of Rindt's #22 Lotus 49C from that fatefull weekend at Monza? I searched both the forum archives and google and still don't have a decent picture. If you have any I would appreceate you sharing them with me.

Thanks.

YES!

[Stefan Schmidt]

Look here:

[Jungle Boy]

Originally posted by philippe7
Jungle Boy

Give me your e-mail adress by using the PM function, and I'll send you a picture of that N°22 Lotus at full speed , without wings.....


Oh and by the way.....it was a 72 , not a 49C .......

I knew it was the 72, I was tired, it was like 6:00 am when I wrote that

Stefan, thanks for the pictures, they are exactly what I was looking for

[Vrba]

Stefan,
thank you. I've never seen the third photo before....taking those Avons into account, it was taken long after the accident. Also, there's a talk that Rindt's chassis 72/2 is being restored by Simon Hadfield (according to Michael Oliver's Lotus 72 book).
In fact, I was expecting to see more damage to the car. It seems like crotch straps really could have saved Rindt....

Hrvoje

[Jungle Boy]

Originally posted by Vrba
Stefan,
thank you. I've never seen the third photo before....taking those Avons into account, it was taken long after the accident. Also, there's a talk that Rindt's chassis 72/2 is being restored by Simon Hadfield (according to Michael Oliver's Lotus 72 book).
In fact, I was expecting to see more damage to the car. It seems like crotch straps really could have saved Rindt....

Hrvoje

I read that if Rindt had been wearing the "crotch straps" (wich he hated and refused to wear) that he would have suffered a severly broken foot/leg and nothing much else. His season would have been over, and his leg badly damaged, but atleast he would have lived.

P.S.

philippe, thank alot for the pics.

[Stefan Schmidt]

I have more pics at home..

[marty8405]

Stefan........That third picture was something I'd seen before but never noticed the Avon tires in the background. Does this car still exist? I was a Rindt fan that year, my first season of following F1, but never really knew any of the details of the aftermath of the accident. A good account of what happened that weekend was in Jackie Stewarts book Faster.

Rich

[Vrba]

Originally posted by marty8405
Stefan........That third picture was something I'd seen before but never noticed the Avon tires in the background. Does this car still exist? I was a Rindt fan that year, my first season of following F1, but never really knew any of the details of the aftermath of the accident. A good account of what happened that weekend was in Jackie Stewarts book Faster.

Rich

Yes, the car still exists and it's currently being restored (an interesting and, perhaps, a controversial idea). Well-known restorerSimon Hadfield was surprised how many original parts survived, he even had an original cockpit surround that was later stolen!

Hrvoje

[Stefan Schmidt]

OK, here we go...

[marty8405]

Vrba and Stefan.......Thanks for the info, very interesting. I can't believe the car actually survived. Whenever you read about this kind of stuff it always seems the teams destroy the remains or send them somewhere to be destroyed. I am facinated by the idea the car exists and will be restored. Does anyone know how this came to be? Regardless of what happened in that car that day in Monza, it certainly is a significant historic car and its something that is surely worthy of preservation.

Rich Martin

[Vrba]

Back in 1997 when I first compiled the full Lotus 72 chassis race log, I had the information that the wreck of Rindt's chassis 72/2 was in the posession of Mr. Giulio Romani from Italy. Michael Oliver corrected it to "Guido Romani" and then wrote the following:
"....The car continued to languish in a government-owned scrap yard [in Italy] where it remained until 1985." Then Guido Romani discovered and acquired the car and kept it in a garage in his home until 1993 (Stefan's photos might well be from that garage). Then Roman's friend Pier-Luigi Mapelli bought the car and "in 2000 the decision was taken to send the car back to England to be rebuilt to its former glory and in November 2001, respected restorer Simon Hadfield began the difficult task". Although it's not fully clear, it seems that Mapelli ordered the restoration....

Hrvoje

[Ruairidh]

Those are powerfully poignant pictures of the wreckage. And while I usually have no desire to see such aftermaths - here, perhaps because of the passage of time, these have a fascination kind of like looking at the Titanic or other long lost shipwreck. I have mixed feelings about this car being restored - part of me wishes it could remain as is - a tribute to Jochen.

Are there any more photos of the car like this? And my interest is not with the accident, but the sheer time warp nature of seeing a car unchanged since 1970

Does anyone have any more detail as to how it came to stay in an Italian Govt scrapyard for 15 years? Why so long - surely the relevant statute of limitations would have expired long before then? How was it acquired?

[Vrba]

My theory (no supporting facts) is that the authorities simply forgot about it and then Romani either got to know about it by accident (maybe he knew someone who knew or got to know about the car) or made his own investigations....maybe we should ask Michael Oliver, the author of the Lotus 72 book - he is also a member of this forum.

Hrvoje

[marty8405]

I have to agree that the facination might be that the car is unchanged, the fact that the Italian government confiscated the car then just left it in a scrapyard is amazing. It certainly could provoke a debate....should the car have been left as is, a time capsule of a horrible event, or should it be restored and maybe bring happier memories as the car that carried Jochen to his championship. Certainly a unique situation.

Rich

[Vrba]

One of Stefan's pics shows the car with no engine, just the monocoque. That's an interesting and most original shot - the engine was removed from the car shortly after the accident and, IIRC, the same engine which was undamaged went into Fittipaldi's 72/5 in which he won the next race in USA thereby clinching the titles for Rindt and Lotus. Also, the front of the car looks more damaged on that photo than on the others....

Hrvoje

[Pedro 917]

Originally posted by Vrba :

Yes, the car still exists and it's currently being restored (an interesting and, perhaps, a controversial idea).

That's the least thing you can say, wish they'd leave it as it is. How much more original can a car be? Brings back sad memories too as he was one of my best friend's hero. He told me once he went to bed pushing his nose down, hoping to wake up looking like Jochen....

[Gary C]

yep, I was hoping, when I first heard years ago that the car still existed, that it would be cut up and thrown away.

[rdrcr]

Fascinating story... even though it has morbid attachments. I do not have any curiosity for crashes, the hapless victims and their outcomes, though many do.

I regard racing cars as tools. In their day they were nothing more than a means to accomplish an end. The very same reason they are devised today. Though the "tools" of yesteryear are only more coveted today because of their associated historical significance.

Sometimes, the racing cars of the past have brilliant spotlights cast upon them, brought there by the racers who succeeded, others cast no light at all, having no real chance to have been proven by the pilots that tried, and still others cast dark shadows like the subject Lotus.

Still, they remain, just tools. Tools for speed and glory for those involved.

The emotional reactions towards them are personal. If one's champion was killed in a car, one might want to see that car destroyed - perhaps seeking out of some sort of returnable vengeance. Generally speaking, I see no purpose in such rationalizations.

Exceptions have been stated and agreed upon however. I think it was in a thread relating to the horrid Le Mans incident, that I concurred about that particular car being disposed of. But only because of the loss of so many innocents.

In this case, I think that it's resurrection would be ok. I'm amazed that it survived for so long, untouched, and now has a chance to turn it's wheels again.

[stuartbrs]

Would anyone like to guess how Jochen would feel about it being restored?


Fascinating pictures..

[nmansellfan]

Originally posted by Vrba
One of Stefan's pics shows the car with no engine, just the monocoque. That's an interesting and most original shot - the engine was removed from the car shortly after the accident and, IIRC, the same engine which was undamaged went into Fittipaldi's 72/5 in which he won the next race in USA thereby clinching the titles for Rindt and Lotus. Also, the front of the car looks more damaged on that photo than on the others....

Hrvoje

Stefans last pic (where it looks like the car has more damage) looks like the scrapyard where the car lay for 25 years. I think the front end looks more damaged than the pictures in the garage because the aluminium across the scuttle (if thats the right description) is not on the car in the older photo, its lying in the background of the picture. Also looks like the car was given a wash once it made it into safer hands...

[Martyj]

Originally posted by Ruairidh
Those are powerfully poignant pictures of the wreckage. And while I usually have no desire to see such aftermaths - here, perhaps because of the passage of time, these have a fascination kind of like looking at the Titanic or other long lost shipwreck. I have mixed feelings about this car being restored - part of me wishes it could remain as is - a tribute to Jochen.

My feelings exactly. Well put.

[MCS]

I've really not enjoyed reading the content or looking at the pictures on this thread.

I still very vividly remember the announcement on Saturday Grandstand that Jochen Rindt had been killed in practice for the Italian Grand Prix almost twenty four years ago. I spent the rest of the afternoon in a complete daze wandering around my parents' garden idly kicking a football at the shed and at the garage, thinking that quite simply, that was enough of motor racing - especially Formula One - for me. Rindt was my absolute hero.

To now find out that somebody is restoring the wreck of his Lotus 72 - undoubtedly to make money - fills me with horror and disillusion.

Why oh why wasn't it destroyed?

MCS

[MCS]

I'm so upset, I've lost the ability to count accurately... almost 34 years ago.

Still seems like yesterday

MCS

[Doug Nye]

I find this all pretty darned detestable... what a pity the wreckage wasn't minced and put in the furnace after the investigation had been completed, as was Cevert's Tyrrell, and other such badly damaged tombstones...

I understand the academic interest - I don't understand the owners/restorers.

DCN

[Twin Window]

Originally posted by Doug Nye

I understand the academic interest - I don't understand the owners/restorers.

I agree. Well put.

Twinny

[rdrcr]

I'm probably going to get crucified for this, but here goes...

Originally posted by MCS
"I've really not enjoyed reading the content or looking at the pictures on this thread..."
...
"...To now find out that somebody is restoring the wreck of his Lotus 72 - undoubtedly to make money - fills me with horror and disillusion.

Why oh why wasn't it destroyed?"

MCS

I feel for you MCS, and others who feel the same, I really do. Even though I don't feel that way now, I had the same sort of feelings when I heard that Gilles Villeneuve was killed. Those feelings subsided and eventually passed as I gained a better understanding of the mentality involved.

Your assumption that this restoration is solely for profiting and even to the extent that it is to be profited off of the promotional aspects of Rindt's death (which by the way, I would draw the line at as well). That may be true - then again it may not. I propose an obvious solution to your horror and disillusionment - Put your money where your mouth is - write a check - chop the car up into little tiny bits and scatter the fragments in the sea.

On the face of it though, seems like a piss-poor way of allocating funds to assuage grief.

And again to drag this old side-topic up.... what is this "hero" worship stuff? Racing drivers are not soldiers of war, nor firemen or police who put themselves in harms way to protect and save others. People who are real heroes should be honored as such and not confused with adrenaline-junkies and glory-hounds.

Idols are another matter - and giving you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it is more a matter of semantics in this case.

*closes face-shield and prepares to be blasted with gravel*

Originally posted by Doug NyeI find this all pretty darned detestable... what a pity the wreckage wasn't minced and put in the furnace after the investigation had been completed, as was Cevert's Tyrrell, and other such badly damaged tombstones...

I understand the academic interest - I don't understand the owners/restorers.

Well, I have to admit I'm a bit surprised at your position on the matter - though as I said I respect it. I hope that your finding the matter detestable won't extend down (personally) to those who fall in the other camp.

Judging from your statement, I'm afraid that you would not respect my position if it was I who found that car in a junkyard and were to set about to restore it - not as Rindt's "death car" certainly - but as a car he raced and was WDC in - no matter what the final outcome. IT has importance in that regard.

It's just a racing car... IT didn't "kill" Rindt.

Rindt was killed in a very dangerous age of racing - where the new found speed, over-ran much of what was once thought safe.

As I write this, I can certainly appreciate the thoughts and feeling of ire that you, MCS, TW and others must have... I hope that you can see my side, just a little, in what I said, not as a prostituter of metal, but as an enthusiast and preserver of racing history.

[Twin Window]

Hi Richard; I understand your point of view entirely.

To clarify my perspective (a somewhat sharpened one at that, especially after I heard thet the Kremer brothers had rebuilt and then sold my friend Jo Gartner's Le Mans '86 chassis) I think that there's a big difference between a chassis such as Rindt's (ie one which could have been left 'as was') and other similar ones which have been subsequently rebuilt, and then sold, for a form of profit.

Twinny

[MCS]

Originally posted by rdrcr
I'm probably going to get crucified for this, but here goes...


I feel for you MCS, and others who feel the same, I really do. Even though I don't feel that way now, I had the same sort of feelings when I heard that Gilles Villeneuve was killed. Those feelings subsided and eventually passed as I gained a better understanding of the mentality involved.

Your assumption that this restoration is solely for profiting and even to the extent that it is to be profited off of the promotional aspects of Rindt's death (which by the way, I would draw the line at as well). That may be true - then again it may not. I propose an obvious solution to your horror and disillusionment - Put your money where your mouth is - write a check - chop the car up into little tiny bits and scatter the fragments in the sea.

On the face of it though, seems like a piss-poor way of allocating funds to assuage grief.

And again to drag this old side-topic up.... what is this "hero" worship stuff? Racing drivers are not soldiers of war, nor firemen or police who put themselves in harms way to protect and save others. People who are real heroes should be honored as such and not confused with adrenaline-junkies and glory-hounds.

Idols are another matter - and giving you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it is more a matter of semantics in this case.

*closes face-shield and prepares to be blasted with gravel*


Well, I have to admit I'm a bit surprised at your position on the matter - though as I said I respect it. I hope that your finding the matter detestable won't extend down (personally) to those who fall in the other camp.

Judging from your statement, I'm afraid that you would not respect my position if it was I who found that car in a junkyard and were to set about to restore it - not as Rindt's "death car" certainly - but as a car he raced and was WDC in - no matter what the final outcome. IT has importance in that regard.

It's just a racing car... IT didn't "kill" Rindt.

Rindt was killed in a very dangerous age of racing - where the new found speed, over-ran much of what was once thought safe.

As I write this, I can certainly appreciate the thoughts and feeling of ire that you, MCS, TW and others must have... I hope that you can see my side, just a little, in what I said, not as a prostituter of metal, but as an enthusiast and preserver of racing history. [/B]

Richard

I need to be very careful here - Jochen Rindt certainly didn't kill himself, that's for sure and we all know that. What on earth are you saying

However, I still find it absolutely indefensible that somebody is rebuilding the wreck the poor man died in. Let's not forget about Rindt's concerns of driving Chapman's cars. Let's face it, he died in something he was worried about racing.

Your comments about "soldiers of war, firemen or police " bewilder me.

I really don't want to contribute to this thread anymore...

Enough.

MCS

[D-Type]

The ethics of rebuilding a car after a fatal accident were discussed on this thread to which I did not contribute as I can't clearly say how I feel.

[Cris]

The car has, for whatever reason, survived. It's a relic of history and as such it seems it at the very least deserves the respect a relic (in whatever condition) deserves. Richard hit the nail on the head: The car did not kill him. If anything, the sport did...the environment, circumstance, situation, mindset, etc. combining together at the right (wrong?) moment and conspiring against a protagonist/driver/hero.

In any form, bent, broken, complete, restored to concours quality, it IS an old racecar and should be preserved.

It seems like a bit of a leap to assume that the only reason why it's being restored is for reasons of profit. That said, it takes two to make something worthwhile, and there will probably be more than one interested party if this car goes on the market.

So many 'death cars' were scrapped over the years and had that fate befallen this one, this discussion would be academic...it somehow made it through though and like anything else old and racing-related, it's an interesting item...macabre, sinister, or otherwise, and to say it should be demolished is a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[rdrcr]

MCS,

Sorry you feel that way, I was hoping we could continue as gentlemen.

Even though Chapman's cars were on the ragged edge of construction at the time, there wasn't any proof established that the car had anything to do with his demise - I am ready to be corrected and I know that he's had prior trouble with the Lotus failing, but one can't use that as evidence here.

He could have quit at any time he felt "hinky" about the cars and even though he may have wanted to, he didn't. To my knowledge, no one was twisting his arm to race.

Sorry also for your bewilderment - I didn't mean to demean.

EDIT:

It appears that I will stand corrected - to a point:

"...The Lotus Ford 72, wedge-shaped and with the Gurney flap on its nose-scone to avoid the interuption of the air flow (without that the whole concept of the car would not work), radiators on both sides, torsion rods instead of the normal suspension struts and special brake discs being inside the bodywork to reduce the springless masses: Ingenious but at the same time dangerous because these technological dimensions were never dared to be explored before. But also irresponsible?

No, if all rules of the science are strictly obeyed and all duties of care man is able to fulfill are absolutely respected. Otherwise yes. Shafts, axles, torsion rods etc. are loaded in longitudinal direction by torsion and therefore they have to be flexible. For this reason pipe-like cross sections are better for them, especially under the aspect of the torque that should be transmitted. The popular opinion, massive is robust and for that reason safe, is the wrong way, each multi-storey building, each motorway bridge otherwise would collapse. When the right front shaft cracked at Jochen Rindts Lotus Ford 72 while braking for the Parabolica curve, the reason was not the shaft being hollow for reducing weight of the complete package. A steel company Lotus bought the shaft from had made a mistake during their service, a scratch on the surface of the axle was the beginning of the break at high speed. The second mistake happened at the quality check not detecting the defect. It does not matter that Rindt drove without the rear wing, with the permission of Chapman and like many others in Monza, too, to get more speed on the long straights. And it does not matter that he had seat belts only fixed on four points than the usually six. That is not responsible for the accident and it´s consequences as well as the whole concept of the Lotus Ford 72 itself..."

from text by Klaus Ewald

However, my position remains the same as far as preservation is concerned.

[MCS]

Originally posted by rdrcr
MCS,

Sorry you feel that way, I was hoping we could continue as gentlemen.

Even though Chapman's car were on the ragged edge of construction at the time, there wasn't any proof established that the car had anything to do with his demise - I am ready to be corrected and I know that he's had prior trouble with the Lotus failing, but one can't use that as evidence here.

He could have quit at any time he felt "hinky" about the cars and even though he may have wanted to, he didn't. To my knowledge, no one was twisting his arm to race.

Sorry also for your bewilderment - I didn't mean to demean.

Richard, please...let's take this offline...

[MCS]

Originally posted by D-Type
The ethics of rebuilding a car after a fatal accident were discussed on this thread to which I did not contribute as I can't clearly say how I feel.

D-Type

Many thanks

MCS

[Muzza]

Very well said, Richard. Once again I quote Don Radbruch: "Sad as they are fatalities are a part of racing history".

Personally I believe Rindt's car should not be restored, but kept in its current condition instead. However, stating that the restoration is taking place "undoubtedly to make money" - as MCS did - is a most hasty conclusion, to say the least.

Museums are not shelves to display pretty things; they are living repositories of our history. One may walk down an aisle of the Louvre and see an object of infinite beauty as Nike of Samothrace, or make turn and get to know horrendous medieval torture devices also in exhibition. Don't we learn from both?

Let's consider for a minute that only "pretty things" had been kept, only "pretty events" recorded, and only "pretty people" biographed. Let's erase the disgusting, the painful, the annoying, the wrong and the sad because of the emotions they entail. Sometime in the future, would our knowledge of the past be the same? Would the absence of "ugly reminders" make us better, worse or would we be just the same? Would we be less or more complete? Would we be less or more prone to repeat the same errors of the past time and again?

This reminds me of a special assignment I saw a few years ago on a French tv channel about a neo-fascist youth that believed that the II World War Holocaust was "just Jewish propaganda", saying things in the lines of "some 200.000 died in these 'detention camps' [as he called them], not four millions as I have heard. And most of them of German and foreign pretty criminals".

The tv crew took the time of taking the young skinhead to a trip to Auschwitz. There he got to visit the museum, the cells, walk along barbed wire fences, see cans of Zyklon B, smell the clothes of prisoners. He saw walls and bars, pits and chains – and, finally, he saw thousands of nameless people, albums and albums of them, just before being beaten, torture, killed. In a most poignant scene, the man broke in tears and could only murmur "thank you for bring me here. I am so sorry." What if concentration camps like Auschwitz, Daschau, Bergen Belsen and its contents had been razed soon after the fall of the Nazi regime, as many had claimed for? How much less would we know today.

Just my two cents.

[rdrcr]

Originally posted by D-Type
The ethics of rebuilding a car after a fatal accident were discussed on this thread to which I did not contribute as I can't clearly say how I feel.

Thanks for bringing that to our attention once more.

Upon re-reading my posts there, it was good to see that I remained consistent - if nothing else.

[rdrcr]

Muzza,

Good points about recognition and past mistakes - but a bit of a stretch to equate acknowledging the risks of pushing the envelope of race car construction to having a skin-head recognize that the attempted extermination of a people wasn't a hoax. Though I get your point.

Moving on...

To what extent could we appreciate or learn anything from that wrecked hulk of a Lotus? In its current state, it honors no one, Rindt especially.

[Ruairidh]

Originally posted by rdrcr


To what extent could we appreciate or learn anything from that wrecked hulk of a Lotus? In its current state, it honors no one, Rindt especially.

I'm not so sure about this. And I don't really know why. Maybe because it is so untouched and so long after the event, but somehow this does honor Jochen, at least to me. And perhaps it is that passage of time that has removed the gruesome or bad taste connotations for me. I'm still trying to figure out why seeing the pictures of the wreck 15 plus years on is better (to me - YMMV) than seeing contemperanous post-accident photos.

I'm sorry it is being restored, but I'm not sorry I've seen the images of it - and am glad to have been reminded of Jochen and to spend a little time again thinking of him and the early part of 1970, before Monza.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by rdrcr
....
No, if all rules of the science are strictly obeyed and all duties of care man is able to fulfill are absolutely respected. Otherwise yes. Shafts, axles, torsion rods etc. are loaded in longitudinal direction by torsion and therefore they have to be flexible. For this reason pipe-like cross sections are better for them, especially under the aspect of the torque that should be transmitted. The popular opinion, massive is robust and for that reason safe, is the wrong way, each multi-storey building, each motorway bridge otherwise would collapse. When the right front shaft cracked at Jochen Rindts Lotus Ford 72 while braking for the Parabolica curve, the reason was not the shaft being hollow for reducing weight of the complete package. A steel company Lotus bought the shaft from had made a mistake during their service, a scratch on the surface of the axle was the beginning of the break at high speed. The second mistake happened at the quality check not detecting the defect. ....

Hm! I have my doubts here! Torsional strength depends on the polar momentum of inertia that depends on the 4th power of diameter(s) of the shaft. In fact, the formula is:

Ip = D^4 * pi / 32 if the shaft is solid
Ip = (D^4 - d^4) * pi / 32 if the shaft s hollow

D - outside diameter
d - inside diameter

Now, for example, if we'd like to design two shafts of the same material with the same Ip, one solid and one hollow, we may obtain the following values:

D1 = 3 cm (diameter of the solid shaft)
D2 = 4 cm (outside diameter of the hollow shaft)
d2 = 3.637 cm (inside diamter of the hollow shaft)

Now, those two shafts have exactly the same torsional rigidity BUT.....the difference in weight is very big:

A1 = D1^2 * pi / 4 = 7.07 cm2 (cross-section area of the solid shaft)
A2 = (D2^2 - d2^2) * pi / 4 = 2.177 cm2 (cross-section area of the hollow shaft)

That means that if the solid shaft weighs for example 2 kg, hollow one would weigh only 0.616 kg. It's an enormous weight saving and the main reason for drilling the shafts, I would say....Even if the designer goes for the bigger security coefficient, weight saving of those component would still be around 50%....

Hrvoje

[Stefan Schmidt]

I think, that I have more photos from the car. I will check the situation for you

[rdrcr]

Vrba,

Ok on the math, and thanks for the analysis, but I don't think that's the point... If I read it correctly, they're saying that the steel was defective - where quality control was missed by the supplier and the buyer.

A steel company Lotus bought the shaft from had made a mistake during their service, a scratch on the surface of the axle was the beginning of the break at high speed. The second mistake happened at the quality check not detecting the defect..

[D-Type]

vrba,
The point of using a tube is that for a given weight a hollow section such as a tube is more efficient than a solid section under any loading other than pure tension.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by rdrcr
Vrba,

Ok on the math, and thanks for the analysis, but I don't think that's the point... If I read it correctly, they're saying that the steel was defective - where quality control was missed by the supplier and the buyer.

Yes, there's no doubt about that! I merely expressed my opinion that the reason for hollowing the shafts was weight saving and not increased elasticity. But it seems that there's no doubt that torsional strength of the shaft that broke was severely compromised by the rift where the holes met improperly.

Hrvoje

[Vrba]

Originally posted by D-Type
vrba,
The point of using a tube is that for a given weight a hollow section such as a tube is more efficient than a solid section under any loading other than pure tension.

True, my analysis shows the same thing....small disadvantage would be aerodynamic as the hollow shaft needs to be of larger outside diameter.

Hrvoje

[Ralliart]

No one has mentioned contacting Nina Rindt to learn her feelings on the matter. It seems to me that as his widow, her wishes should be respected.

[Doug Nye]

I second the above...

DCN

[Gary C]

Me too

[rdrcr]

I can't leave well enough alone...

Objectively - I wonder how I would react, if my brother or my dearest friend was killed pursuing something they loved. Would I object to the restoration of the vehicle my friend or relative perished in? If I could not obtain that vehicle, (so to have its fate in my hands) would I expect my wishes to be honored? In spite of any outcome, I think I would appreciate being asked - and in this case, who is to say that has not already been done?

I suppose we could find out. To those who know me, I'm no more fearful of making an inquisitive and respectful phone call than I am expressing opinion here... However, I may not be the best person to do the inquiring. Though, if no one else will step forward, I am certainly able.

At the risk of pressing the point and alienating some new-found friends...

To the hypothetical:

Suppose we contacted Nina Rindt - easy enough to do, she is on the BoD of the Essen Motor Show. And suppose she is vehemently opposed to such a restoration.

Then what?

Do you think that the new owner will capitulate? If he doesn't would he be held with more contempt than he is currently?

To the contrary:

Suppose in the correct light, she finds the news a welcome thing and approves of the car being restored, presented and raced.

Would it be ok then?

Or, would you still dissent - finding some flaw in her logic to suit your own agendas?

Another hypothetical question:

If Rindt's parents were still alive, should we then go to them and seek their approval? Surely their opinion should be held as high if not higher.

Where is this perfect world? I need a map I guess.

[Doug Nye]

Certainly sounds like it mate...

DCN