What caused the Jochen Rindt crash at Monza in 1970
Posted 07 October 2000 - 10:39
Posted 07 October 2000 - 13:08
As for Rindt being killed, the Armco came apart on impact and the post ripped the front tub apart.
Posted 07 October 2000 - 14:44
Posted 07 October 2000 - 17:26
Posted 07 October 2000 - 17:58
Posted 07 October 2000 - 19:16
"On Saturday 5 September 1970 Jochen Rindt went out to practice in his Lotus 72 at Monza in preparation for the Italian Grand Prix. At Chapman's insistence, he was running without nose wings or aerofoil in an attempt to squeeze out of it as much straightline speed as possible to counter the more powerful flat-12 Ferraris. Rindt's team-mate John Miles was told to do the same, but was adamant that the car felt horrifyingly unstable in this configuration.
Braking hard for Parabolica, Rindt had just overtaken Denny Hulme's McLaren when his 72 began weaving under braking and speared off to the left, impacting very heavily against the inadequately secured guard rail. The front of the car was torn off as the Lotus's chisel nose jammed under the barrier and Jochen, who never secured the crotch straps on his six point harness, was plunged into the cockpit, severing his jugular vein on it's main buckle."
"A lengthy investigation eventually attributed Jochen's loss of control to the fracturing of one of front brakeshafts, although instability on cold tyres was also a significant factor."
Posted 08 October 2000 - 10:35
This all seems to put paid to the idea that his foor was cut off by the brake shaft...
Posted 08 October 2000 - 15:39
Posted 08 October 2000 - 20:42
Posted 09 October 2000 - 14:00
Further to the John Miles situation, he'd tried driving the car once the wings were removed the day before the accident, and described in as one of the few times he'd been physically scared driving a car such was its lack of stability
Posted 09 October 2000 - 14:18
Posted 10 October 2000 - 12:46
I have read that this was because Jochen Rindt only wore shoulder straps and not the full 8 point (?) straps as were becoming common at the time.
Originally posted by Eric McLoughlin
He obviously slid right down into the tub.
Posted 10 October 2000 - 12:50
Posted 13 October 2000 - 20:05
Posted 28 October 2000 - 22:02
The actual cause of the brake failure was that the Lotus used inboard brakes which were linked to the wheels via. hollow shafts. The shafts were hollowed out by drilling into each end, where theoretically the drillings meet in the middle and everything is hunky dorey. Unfortunately, with Jochen Rindts car, the drillings did not meet up and a slight 'lip' was left and this is where the shaft failed. The effect of the lip is like the notch cut out of packages to make them easier to tear.
As for the cars designer Maurice Phillipe, I thought he died of a heart attack, but I've been told recently it was suicide. Any info?
Posted 28 October 2000 - 22:31
Your comments on Chapman seem to me to be way out of line. Although by nature I tend to respect some other people´s opinions, I have been tempted in this occassion to let my latin character take over and only because I am re-reading Don Quijote I have overcome the temptation.
Surely you have a good reason to believe what you say, i.e. that Colin Chapman should have been severely punished for building "dreadfully dangerous cars". Do you think that the same, in an ideal world, should have applied to other constructors?
Please elaborate, as we might be in the presence of a totally new line of thinking here, and I am very curious to see how do you come to that surprising conclussion.
Posted 28 October 2000 - 22:50
In the design and construction of his cars, Chapman apparently had poor consideration for those whose lives depended on their build quality (Lotus drivers, other drivers, marshalls & spectators). The scandalous aspect of this was that Chapman was not ignorant of the marginal designs he sanctioned. In a recent MotorSport magazine article focussing on Rindts death, I was outraged to learn that Chapman had ignored his engineers and instructed them to use bolts that were too small. This goes beyond carelessness and enters downright negligence. Chapman was right to argue that a small bolt correctly loaded would carry an enormous weight. Could he guarantee that bolt would be loaded correctly? Could he hell! I've read quite a bit on racing history and I have serious doubts about Mr. Chapman. Similarly, I have nothing but the utmost respect for John Miles who, in my book, is in the same league as Rudi Uhlenhaut as an engineer whose abilities as a driver were commendable.
Posted 29 October 2000 - 18:51
There is no doubt that he was somewhat cavalier in his attitude to the strength of his cars, especially in the early days. The theory that a Lotus should cross the line first - and then fall to pieces was a tad close to the mark on occasions.
However, if you study photographs of the 1970 Italian Grand Prix you will see many cars running with front and/or rear wings removed. Without checking, I couldn't be sure, but something tells me even Jackie Stewart did it. This was emphatically NOT the cause of Jochen's crash, nor indeed a contributory factor. He crashed because the brake shaft broke and he died because he would not do up the crutch straps. A sad but simple truth.
Posted 29 October 2000 - 21:08
I see your point a little bit clearer now.
I will, if you don´t mind, suggest that some further documentation on the subject would harm nobody.
I have also read in the last couple of months some stories in magazines (not only MotorSport, that you should handle with extreme care these days, but some others too) approaching the subject of the death of Rindt in a manner that suggests that the John Miles version -quite theatrical but very usefull for selling purposes, in my humble opinion-is the one that explains the full truth.
Of course the subject, if seen from that point of view, has the ability to make one think the worst about Chapman. But being a little sceptical about "history revisited" I think that Barry´s explanation is probably the most accurate one.
Posted 29 October 2000 - 21:30
The answer is yes, he committed suicide.
I think I remember from somewhere that he hanged himself.
But as I terribly remembered wrong on Ogawa, maybe there is someone out there with a better memory than mine...
Posted 29 October 2000 - 23:03
The 72 was a typical Lotus in that it was very prone to failure a fact that Jochen was very aware and wary of, he did not trust the car or Chapmans reassurances of it. If he had not passed away in 1970 he would have either left Lotus or retired.
Posted 31 October 2000 - 21:32
Posted 01 November 2000 - 01:54
"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."
The above is the actual reason for the accident.
Posted 01 November 2000 - 08:12
Posted 01 November 2000 - 12:34
There are other relevant points here. While it was the broken shaft that caused the crash, it was the faulty mounting of the armco guard rail that turned it into a really serious crash.
And then it was Rindt's refusal to wear the crotch straps of his harness that magnified the injuries received and ultimately caused his death.
So quite a few people contributed - shaft manufacturer, quality control, the people who erected the fence, the FIA safety inspectors who didn't pick up the problem, and Rindt himself.
Plus, perhaps, Chapman for insisting on having inboard front brakes in the first place.
Had someone fixed any one of those problems, Rind might be here today.
Posted 01 November 2000 - 14:08
Was it a draughtsman mistake, was it a design error, was it a poor copy, had someone given the wrong instructions??
Too many questions without answers.
My source specialises in Lotus racing cars and is sending me his new URL, which I will pass on to you guys.
Posted 01 November 2000 - 22:15
That is just the initial cause it is highly likely that if
A: The Armco was properly secured
B: Rindt properly secured his harness
He would still be around today.
Posted 02 November 2000 - 00:12
I know that Ronnie Peterson was really furious after the 1971 Race of Champions as he got a brake shaft failure on his March 711 (he was entered for that race by Frank Williams/Motul) That was only about half a year after Rindt.
Posted 02 November 2000 - 00:24
Posted 02 November 2000 - 07:48
The saving on unsprung weight was added to the car gross weight and becoming a heavier unit.Cooling problems on the disc, pad wear rate, additional costs for all of the above.
Posted 02 November 2000 - 09:46
That fact that he wasn't led to his fatal injuries as he was thrown forward into the tub. If he had been wearing them then presumably he would have survived at best unscathed or worst with leg injuries because although the front of the tub was destroyed the cockpit area still remained intact.
Posted 02 November 2000 - 23:21
In board brakes at the rear were used on and off by several teams during the 50s and 60s, notably Ferrari and early lotus cars. They were almost universal during the 70s, until the advent of ground effects. They then got in the way of the air, and the absence of springs meant that unsprung weight wasn't a problem. Nowadays, with carbon fibre brakes, theere is even less reason.
Posted 02 November 2000 - 23:31
Posted 02 November 2000 - 23:49
Don't bet on it.
Originally posted by Bernd
...it is quite unlikely that a driver will ever be seriously injured let alone killed in a Formula 1 car...
Posted 02 November 2000 - 23:57
Posted 03 November 2000 - 17:28
Where there are already driveshafts in place, of course, inboard brakes are a natural path to follow - providing there's room.