ex- Rhodie,

I've started this post about three times. And deleted it twice. I cannot believe someone who's posts I usually value, wrote the posts above. Perhaps you would like to digress in a PM? I am missing something here.

Seriously, just don't bother posting if you don't know what the fuck your talking about.

I take it you disagree with my post. What exactly do you disagree with? Do you have an opinion, or are you simply a rude SOB?

As rude as a person who would call a 3 times Champ ' a certified halfwit'?

Sorry if you feel I´ve let the side down, but what exactly is the problem? I was racing bikes in Stewarts "safety" period, and I lost quite a few mates thanks to his shortsighted and, the way we saw it, selfish and self promoting ideas.
What am I supposed to say? Well done Jacky Stewart for creating the conditions that ended the lives of numerous very nice, decent fellows. Just because he was on a mission and didn´t have the first fucking (first time I´ve used a swear word on this forum, but I just can´t help it this time) clue what he was doing.
F1 wasn´t, and never will be, the be all and end all of motorsport. It´s just another discipline, that´s all. The lives of JS and his cronies were never any more valuable than those of people like Jarno Saarinen, Renso Pasolini and many, many more. Think about it.

You've made your feelings clear, but I don't think you've given us much in the way of reasoned argument.

Don't do that to me - I'm taking you seriously. What was so bad about him?

Apart from being totally off-topic, the point about Stewart being responsible for badly thought-of safety measures is pretty moot since you basically got enough fingers and toes to account for the F1 tracks... you cant blame JYS for what was happening everywhere else, where the bulk of bikers and other racers were experiencing dangerous situations and being injured or killed as a result...

Rhodie

I take the point that at some circuits Armco was a bad idea for motorcyclists, and there were fatalities as a result. But that could be (and has been) dealt with.

It was hardly JYS' fault, he wanted tracks like Spa to be safer, and even a biker stands more chance if there is Armco between him and the trees, or as in Rindt's case (I think) a 20-foot drop.

What about seat belts, properly trained and equipped marshals, decent medical facilities, fuel bags, medical evac helicopters, full-face helmets in open cars, run-off areas and fuel cutoff switches? Those were all things he campaigned for, against often vicious opposition from such as Dennis Jenkinson, who more or less implied that JYD was a coward and should take the risks like a man.

Please. Can't you at least try to be a little nice at times? What is it with you and everything remotely connected to Max Mosley, anyway? You don't seem able to discuss like an adult whenever stuff like that comes up.

Come on?

Absolutely.

I once read an assessment of Lauda which postulated that his three WDC's came about as much because he wanted them to as anything else. To have been so hugely maimed in 1976, but to come back so quickly, despite initial crippling fear (which he candidly admitted in his autobio), to stop, and return in the manner he did... it all points to a real hard man.

AJ does get short shrift, but he has openly talked about a personal streak of niggard impetuosity which coloured many of his off-track decisions (and perhaps some of those on-track at times). Still, he remains one of my faves... and since he probably still remains the yardstick by which Williams judge their drivers, you'd assume that Sir Frank, and Patrick Head thought he was OK too.

Prost deserved his nickname, but was a nervy type for many of his years in the sport...

To read Sir Jackie Stewart's recent autobiography was to get a glimpse of how hard drivers had to be to continue to compete and survive through the 60's and early 70's... his statement that over the course of ten years, he had - and witnessed in too many cases - 60 of his good friends and peers killed horrifically by his chosen profession can't help but paint a stark picture of what was out there for a driver in those days. To win three WDC's and claim a number of victories that remained unsurpassed until Prost got there 14 years later in those times, and under those conditions is incredible. And to remember that at his last F1 meeting, he not only saw his closest racing friend and team-mate killed horribly... but then went out in an identical car to replicate the events that led to Cevert's death to reason it out, and to give peace of mind to the team shouts of a tough cookie.

My beef one this one iscolated occasion is with one person who provided a wholly mis-informed rant about the apparent ineptitude of Stewarts crusade to improve safety. I just found it completely disrespectful - not to mention completely wrong. Nothing to do with anything else.

Well put. I understand ex-Rhodie racer's point better now, but his argument is still flawed. The circuitowners didn't want to do anything about the tracks, untill Stewart, Bonnier and other big names forced them to. That the motorcyclists (perhaps even a youthfull mr. Rhodie) did not have the leverage to force trackowners to guard THEIR safety too, who's fault was that? Stewarts? Was it his fault too that trackowners did the absolute minimum about their tracks because they did not want to give up their profit? That after they gave in to Stewart & co had their way, they thought: 'Right, that's sorted. Now we won't have to do anything about the tracks for a thousand years. And here come the bikes!'

And again: Stewart not knowing about graveltraps and run off area's? I am extremely sceptical about the notion that 'every sane person knew' that was the way to go. Hans Hugenholtz, the designer of the Zandvoort-track, always advocated wirefencing in front of guardrails. He vehemently believed that was the best for the drivers.
In hindsight, he was wrong. Several drivers - out of my head Mark Donohue - were allegedly killed by a pole of the wirefencing striking their head. So Hugenholtz is a killer too, right?

Really? I hear this for the first time here.

Max Mosley!

No shit member since 2008, however given how you have described Häkkinen in this thread you would have been one of the prime candidates to join the quire.

Certainly not.

Well say so instead then, much better than swearing and behaving like a child.

MICHAEL SCHUMACHER

Possibly the most talented, and definately the driver with mental toughness. If nothing else, driving for the WDC in 10 seasons is a feat. Hamilton looks scary, but I think he won't beat the weltmeister in the long term. Senna and Prost were greats, but neither of them reached Michael: Senna was not that great on the races, and Prost didn't have the ultimate speed of Schumacher.

I´ll give you tough cookie. Ever heard of John McGinness. He averaged 130mph around a 60km road circuit on the IOM that has claimed over 150 lives. He did it knowing and accepting the danger. Now that´s a tough cookie. Or David Jefferies, who was the king of the Island, but who ultimately lost his life there doing what he loved, for very little remuneration. Now that was one tough cookie. Or Michael Dunlop who won an incredible race 2 days after his father was killed in a practice session for the same race, on one of the world´s fastest and dangerous road circuits. Now that´s a tough cookie. Or the hundreds, nay thousands, of two wheel competitors that lined up on circuits that had been rendered lethal for them by JS´s armco and catchfencing. Now those were tough cookies.
By comparison, Stewart was a whinging wimp.
BTW, Cevert died as a direct result of Stewarts armco. I find that somewhat sadly ironic.

a hay bail surrounded by marshals, lamppost or tree would have been better eh? are you sure it had nothing to do with the car going off track? perhaps mechanical or driver induced? or was it really caused by armco?

His car wedged itself under the bottom barrier I believe, which resulted in his decapitation. Yes, a hay bail might well have been better. It could hardly have been worse. The reason the car left the track is immaterial. Safety issues very rarely involve circumstances were the car remains on track.
But you are missing the point old chap. The perfect thing would have been no obstacle at all.

I don't regard someone "accepting the danger" and pressing full speed ahead particularly smart about their racing. I know of David Jefferies and watched him do the IOM on TV. I love watching it, but it is crazy to race like that. Why don't they do something about it and make it safer.

Why didn't the bike riders insist on safer tracks for bike races? Blaming JYS for doing something for his sport, but not others seems off handed and irresponsible. If the tracks are not up to scratch do not race, the track owners will eventually make the necessary changes. Also, referring to JYS in such derogatory terms because he did not think about run off areas, is really ridiculous, why didn't you think about it as a bike rider?

You are clearly emotional about the subject and JYS, but your posts are not the stuff of logic.

Trying to lay all of the "blame" for the track changes in the late sixties and early seventies entirely at JYS's door is disingenuous. Agreed, he was fully in favour of those changes but the reason he is so closely associated with them is because of his then role as president of the GPDA. As such he was acting as spokesman for all of the drivers, the vast majority, if not all, were in favour of improvements to the environment in which they raced. His wasn't a lone dissenting voice, with all of the other drivers trying to silence him because they preferred racing on unprotected tracks.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight we can say how things could have been better, but the measures that were put in place were considered adequate for cars at the time.

The riders that you mention, and the scores of less known ones who tackle the Isle of Man every year, are indisputably tough cookies. Let's for a moment imagine they were faced with a 37.7 mile track, undulating over blind crests, with sequences of bends that frankly I wouldn't tackle at 50mph let alone 150mph. Now lets imagine by some miracle that the trackside scenery was all moved back 25yards, and run off areas created on the outside of the most challenging bends. Would those riders refuse to race there because it wasn't dangerous enough? Would they ask for lamposts to be put in half a yard from the roadside every 20 yards? Would they ask for the left -right flicks at the bottom of a 1:6 slope to be lined on both sides with 6 foot high stone walls? I am sure given the choice they would opt for the less hazardous circuit. I would suggest that they choose to race at the Isle of Man (and the more conventional circuits) in spite of the dangers, not because of them. If my suggestion is wrong, the fact remains that the riders choose to compete in full awareness of the dangers, they could equally choose not to race.

This is the choice that faced Grand Prix drivers 40 years ago, and by making it clear that they (as a group, not JYS as an individual) were not content with safety provisions then the circuit owners responded. That choice was available to riders at the time and remains available today.

Like what? Move the houses back 30 meters?
It wasn´t, and still isn´t "crazy". What are you saying? That these extremely brave men are crazy? I bet you wouldn´t say that to their faces.
No, they have something Stewart only wished he had. It´s called , balls.

No one blamed Stewart for doing something for HIS sport. The whole point is, F1 didn´t have exclusive use of any of the tracks they raced on. They were also used for every other discipline in motorsport, including 2 wheeled events. Unfortunately, the safety measures that Stewart and the other F1 drivers wanted were in direct conflict with what was regarded as safe for 2 wheelers.
As for Stewart not considering run off areas, that is because he was protected by a cage. If he had made contact with anything solid had he raced on 2 wheels, he would soon have realized that the human body is far less capable of absorbing a high impact collision with a solid object than car. Then, like us, he would have understood that any obstacle in the path of an out of control machine could have fatal results.
The truth of this whole thing is that motorcycle racing was considered unimportant, 2nd class. Who the hell gave a damn if a couple of bikers got wiped out? The Jacky Stewarts of this world were far more important. That was the thinking, I´m afraid.

You´re damn right I am pal. Maybe you should have been there, then you might understand why. Logic? Depends from who´s point of view you see this whole thing.

I am happy you've explained yourself more. I appreciate that. I won't debate your memory. But my impression is that ALL drivers, F1 or bikers, were unimportant to trackowners. Just like tennisplayers were unimportant to the 'powers that were' in tennis, or footballplayers in the football world.

At the end of the sixties, early seventies, sportsmen in many fields suddenly started to realise they were the protagonists in a play but were treated like stagehands. They started to rebel. They started unions, organised strikes. Remember the playerstrike at Wimbledon in 1973? 13 of the top 16 players did not play the tournament. Why? Because the ITF (the tennis-FIA, if you want a description) treated them like slaves. In racing, bikes or cars, the participants were seen more like cannonfodder.

Trackowners did not care more about F1 drivers, they just did not care. They did put the safetymeasures forth for F1 and NOT for bikeracers (correct?) because they were afraid to lose the F1 races. If bikeracing back then had been as big as F1 spectatorwise, and the drivers would have threatened with strikes, the tracks would also have installed safetymeasures for bikeracers, I am sure of it. It has nothing to do with the perceived condescence towards bikeracing.

Then, F1-drivers looking down on bike-racers? Why should they? Did they look down on John Surtees? Mike Hailwood? Come on!

I, or any other poster, doesn't need to have been THERE to understand you. I, for example, understand your emotions perfectly. But I still dare to say you are blaming the wrong person for the death of your friends. That's not youthfull arrogance. Perhaps I just have the blessing of hindsight and not being involved.

Thats one of the most vile and offensive actual 'racing comment' I've read on this board...

If the Glen is so unsafe because of JYS, why are people still racing between those things even today

Please get ahold of yourself..

Don´t you dare lecture me on my comments. If you have a point, make it
They are also racing at Monaco. What is your point?

Jerome, you are correct in much of what you say. Do you know what? I´ve never blamed anyone for their deaths, because we all knew what we were getting into.
Lets just leave it at that. It´s history and in the past. Thank goodness we have all learned from the mistakes that were made.

You have just illustrated how pathetic your line of reasoning is... Who is directly responsible for placing all these stationary objects so close and around the Monaco circuit?

I will not be dragged into this... You should open a new topic about it so we can find who died as a direct result of who's safety measures, and see how you fare...

I would say it to their faces, because I am not saying they are crazy in an offensive way. I respect that they put their lives on the line for their thrill and our entertainment, and they are brave and they do have balls, but I still think they are "crazy" to race on IOM and other tracks. You honestly think that JYS did not have balls racing in the 60s-70s. Just because one person has more balls than another does not mean they both don't have balls.



I asked this before, why didn't the bike riders protest and insist on outfitting the tracks for their safety as well? Refusal to ride carries a lot of power.



I still question your logic in the argument. Chastising JYS years later after new methods have been discovered is ridiculous. Was it an option then? You mentioned, how could they make IOM safer, but runoffs are not possible. Maybe at the time it was not possible. But I fail to see how 1 man standing up for his category of sport is to blame for another category not standing up for theirs.

I do understand that you probably raced at a time when emotions could have run high and JYS would have been the target, but looking at it now, I fail to see how he can be blamed.

If Cevert hadn't hit the armco, he would have been launched off a 20 foot bank and would have landed in a crowded access road to the circuit. If the armco hadn't been there Cevert still would have been killed along with a couple of carloads of spectators.

Hard men all... and yes, I agree about the hundreds, nay thousands of two wheel competitors that lined up on circuits... IOM has never been a place for the timid though, has it?

I take it that your resentment of JYS and his well-intentioned (but from a bike racer's point of view, dangerously flawed) safety campaign leaves no room for any admiration for anything remotely great that he might've been perceived to have done. And fair enough, one man's meat etc etc... and it's your opinion, to which you are entitled. Still, I'll (quietly) admire him from here where I sit, despite him not having been a bike racer.

Not at all Hank. I had the greatest admiration for his ability behind a steering wheel. Definitely one of the best I´ve seen. (BTW, I also raced 4 wheelers, so I´ve been both sides of the fence )

-The point, and Jackie’s respect, is deserved on the basis of self-less EFFORT, something that you clearly hold no value in.

Before Armco, there was nothing but natural obstructions such as trees, walls or banks. I am under the impression that a motorbike hitting a tree at 100 mph will do approximately the same damage as Armco. Clearly your education in physics has led you to a different conclusion.

And where there was 'no' obstacle there were spectators and straw bails.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this poster has lost the plot. I'm really disapointed to be reading this sort of disrespectful crap on Autosport, of all websites.

Our point? By your logic there would be no armco at Monaco (because its Stewarts evil invention) but instead, just this year, Coulthard would have landed in the harbour and Rosberg would have killed about 10 people in the crowd. Your arguement is insane, I'm getting outta here before I get myself banned.

Jackie, is that you?
Can´t you see that you are missing the point entirely? Monaco is a F1 circuit and has never been used for a motorcycle race. If the F1 boys want armco lining the circuit, then that´s what they should get. And they would be spot on as well. Street circuits need to be ringed in steel, for everyones protection, not only the drivers.
But in the 60´s, 70´s and 80´s, that wasn´t the case with 90% of the other circuits in use.
But, I really don´t want to repeat myself just for your benefit. If you simply don´t understand what I have said, then I can´t help you I´m afraid.
And thank you for your repeated personal insults. Much appreciated. I´ll refrain from sinking to your level though.

I see they have been deleted. I hope by you, on reflection.

Your opinion. And you are, like me, more than entitled to it.

We weren´t as concerned about what happened to the motorcycle as to what happened to us. . You can cut trees down you know.

Are you suggesting there are no spectators at races today?
You haven´t the first clue what you are on about . Sorry.

Thread edited. Can everyone remain civilised please and refrain from personal attacks. Post with arguments, not personal insults.

Well sir, I doffs me lid to you, with sincere admiration. And second your comments on bike racers... I've had mates maimed by those scary two-wheeled things in the mst relatively innocuous circumstance, so will leave them to you... cars don't scare me quite as much

Jackie, is that you?
Can´t you see that you are missing the point entirely? Monaco is a F1 circuit and has never been used for a motorcycle race. Posted by ex Rhodie racer.

Wrong, there was a bike race there on May 16th 1948 and it was won by Brini riding a Gilera. One of the other riders was Jean Behra. This was the only bike race ever around Monte Carlo and it was held on I think the Monday after the GP.

At this year's Monaco Historique they had a parade of some of the bikes or similar machines, that competed there in 1948.

Hi Jerome,

what you write is right, just some small corrections on some details. That incident happened in 1966 , when Stewart, who had two wins in his bag at the time, crashed his BRM . Interestingly he crashed in the same spot, where Rindt, who finished second, spun his car as well, but didn't crash.

Oops, my mistake. You are absolutely right. You know there's an interview with Graham Hill on the internet, who talks about the incident? You can find it on youtube. Very entertaining... if you are willing to let Hills charmmake you forget that Stewart had a terrible accident...