20 replies to this topic

[Sergio Sultani]

In USA 1966 GP F1, Jochen Rindt (Cooper Maserati V12) finished in second. In the closing laps he started having problems with the accelerator and his last lap (108ª) was done in two and a half minutes, contrary to Article regulation that said "if the final lap of a driver is conducted with more than twice the time of the final winner (Jim Clark won), it not be counted in his time racing".
Then Clark won with 108 laps and Rindt lost the last lap (108ª) and officially finished with 107 laps.

Does anyone know if was any other driver in F1 in this situation?
And in which period this rule was applied?


Happy new year
Sultani.

[Barry Boor]

Interesting that Rindt didn't lose any places as a result of this rule - presumably because he started is 107th lap before Surtees, who finished third.

[kayemod]

Three Coopers in the top four, they never got a result as good as that ever again.

[AJB]

Three Coopers in the top four, they never got a result as good as that ever again.

Nor the BRM H-16

[Barry Boor]

Yes, it was a bit of a freak race all round, wasn't it?

[kayemod]

Yes, it was a bit of a freak race all round, wasn't it?

Maybe it's the sort of result we should bear in mind when we harp on about 'the good old days', six classified finishers from nineteen starters, the sixth man seven laps behing Jim Clark, who hadn't had to push for the second half of the race, and was almost coasting at the end to save his borrowed engine.

That's all from a contemporary Motor Racing race report, sounds really gripping, doesn't it? The winner took home $20,000, which was considerably more than that year's champion Jack Brabham got for winning four races in Europe.

[Roger Clark]

Maybe it's the sort of result we should bear in mind when we harp on about 'the good old days', six classified finishers from nineteen starters, the sixth man seven laps behing Jim Clark, who hadn't had to push for the second half of the race, and was almost coasting at the end to save his borrowed engine.

That's all from a contemporary Motor Racing race report, sounds really gripping, doesn't it? The winner took home $20,000, which was considerably more than that year's champion Jack Brabham got for winning four races in Europe.

I think that the early battle for the lead, and Surtees' great drive after losing almost three laps would have made for a very gripping race.

Sergio Sultani says that Rindt lost time on his final lap due to problems with the accelerator. Motor Sport and Autosport both said that he ran out of fuel. It would be interesting, if someone can look in the relevant Autocourse, to know whether he was slowing significantly in the final laps. Presumably, the order on the road at the end of 107 laps must have been Rindt, Clark, Surtees, but I'd like to know whether this was so, and how big were the gaps.

Lastly, and in response to the original question, there was a similar rule in the 1957 French Grand Prix. Jean Behra pushed his Maserati over the line after Fangio finished but hi last lap took too long and was not counted. There was a thread about this many years ago.

Behra suffered from a race regulation, not one imposed by the CSI on all races. I don't know whether this was the case in the 66 USGP but i suspect it was.

[kayemod]

Sergio Sultani says that Rindt lost time on his final lap due to problems with the accelerator. Motor Sport and Autosport both said that he ran out of fuel. It would be interesting, if someone can look in the relevant Autocourse, to know whether he was slowing significantly in the final laps. Presumably, the order on the road at the end of 107 laps must have been Rindt, Clark, Surtees, but I'd like to know whether this was so, and how big were the gaps.

A quote from the Motor Racing report.

"The Italian (Bandini) was in fine form as he battled with Brabham for the lead, but at one third distance the Ferrari coasted into the pits with a dead engine.....leaving Brabham with a quarter of a minute lead over Clark.....when at 55 laps, he (Brabham) was forced to retire with a broken cam follower. The result of this was that Clark inherited a useful lead of nearly a minute over Rindt, a margin which enabled him to drop his revs and concentrate on keeping his engine in one piece....apart from the battle for the lead between Bandini and Brabham, this was a comparatively dull race, enlivened only by Surtees' magnificent effort."

Jim was about two minutes, well over a lap ahead of Jochen at the finish, the Cooper driver was said to have been coping with a sticking throttle, so I'd be sparing in my use of the word 'gripping'.

[Charlieman]

My thanks to Sergio Sultani for pointing out this unusual result.

The rule itself makes sense for long distance racing but not for a "sprint" event. At a "sprint" event it is implausible that a car is parked in the pits with a ten lap lead (initially) while the pit crew patch it up so that it can crawl round the necessary laps for completion. During which period did this rule apply?

Referring to the Wikipedia article about Jack Brabham, with standard Wikipedia qualifications, I note this about the 1959 US GP at Sebring: "The next day, after pacing himself behind Moss, who soon retired with a broken gearbox, he led almost to the end of the race before running out of fuel on the last lap. He again pushed the car to the finish line to place fourth..." How long did it take Jack to complete the last lap?

[David McKinney]

It would be interesting, if someone can look in the relevant Autocourse, to know whether he was slowing significantly in the final laps.

I thought I had that one, but don't

However, I can advise Charlieman that Brabham's last lap in the 1959 race took something more than five minutes, instead of a little over three

[Tim Murray]

Lastly, and in response to the original question, there was a similar rule in the 1957 French Grand Prix. Jean Behra pushed his Maserati over the line after Fangio finished but hi last lap took too long and was not counted. There was a thread about this many years ago.

Yer tiz:

1957 French GP Rouen

It also contains the discussion about the question (AFAIK never conclusively resolved) of whether WDC points were awarded for sixth-place finishes before 1960.

[Mike Argetsinger]

Three Coopers in the top four, they never got a result as good as that ever again.

Can't agree here. They won the next two Grands Prix -- Mexico and South Africa (67). I would take a win over a 2-3-4 finish any time. And, contrary to the general opinion expressed here, Watkins Glen 1966 was an exciting race. The early race battle was a three-car affair. Brabham-Bandini-Surtees ran nose to tail. Great stuff!

Brabham and Bandini exchanged the lead several times. Surtees moved into third place on lap 9 and for the next seven or so very exciting laps they ran together like a train. On the 17th lap they came up to lap Peter Arundell on the approach to the very fast esses at the top of the hill. Arundell gave way for the first two cars in the first left of the esses but was unable to do so for Surtees (John thought he had been chopped and that Arundell had not seen him. This may be so -- but it is also true that the esses is a very difficult place to give room and he may simply have not been able to move over at that juncture).

In any case both men spun off the track (pretty hairy stuff at what was likely 150 mph or so, although there was, at that time, run-off room there). When they completed the lap each man pulled into his pit. Surtees pitted first to have the car looked over. Just as he stopped Arundell came by and stopped at the Lotus pit which was the next pit box down.

John fairly leapt from the Cooper and approached Arundell (who remained in the Lotus) and remonstrated vociferously. Cooper team manager Roy Salvadori finally took John by the arm and brought him back to the race car. John was in a fury but once back in the car I observed a remarkable transformation. His face changed, literally in an instant, from anger to what I can only call steely determination. He had lost two minutes in the pits and resumed the race in 13th position, two laps down to the leaders. His drive from there to finish third was nothing short of spectacular. He repeatedly broke the lap record -- unlapped himself once -- and altogether put on a great demonstration of driving on the limit.

Although the second half of the race was admittedly less exciting than the first half, it was still an engaging race despite what may be inferred from the results table. Incidentally, somewhere in this thread it is said that Jim Clark finished more than a lap ahead of Rindt in second. This is not true. Jochen was on the same lap as Jim but on the last lap he coasted home out of fuel. His previous lap had been nearly as fast as all his other laps so the fuel issue clearly manifested itself on the last lap. His lap time for his final (108th) lap was 2 min. 28.5 sec. As stated in the first post in this thread that invoked article 25 of the race regulations that stipulated that the final lap could not take more than twice as long as the race winner's fastest lap (Clark's fastest lap was 1:10.1.).

I never heard anyone who was there that day say that it was anything but a good and exciting race.

[Barry Boor]

There is absolutely nothing better than a first-hand account.

Thank you for that, Mike; excellent!

[kayemod]

There is absolutely nothing better than a first-hand account.

Oh how true! I'd much rather have watched that race than the one that Motor Racing's reporter seems to have attended, Mike Argetsinger's account makes us all wish we'd been there.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by kayemod
.....Mike Argetsinger's account makes us all wish we'd been there.

As they always do!

There can always be a lot more in a race than the apparent facts reveal, but more than the mere statistics are required to bring them out.

As usual, Mike has recalled those facts and conveyed them in a way that befits his recall. I had not realised that Mike was once again posting on TNF, that is perhaps the nicest surprise I've had all day!

[Barry Boor]

As it was for several of us when Mike reappeared a couple of weeks ago, Ray.

[B Squared]

As it was for several of us when Mike reappeared a couple of weeks ago, Ray.

Hear, hear. I had lunch with Michael last Saturday and conveyed the same. To be immersed in the sport all your life and to then have the abilities to share these experiences in the manner that Michael is able, is a bonus for all enthusiasts. I know if I live to be 100, I'll never have enough time with him to hear all of his racing experiences and the fascinating people associated with them.

[Ray Bell]

Yes, I've just gone through your Watkins Glen thread, Brian...

I had not looked into it before, such a shame! I think I spent a few minutes short of two hours doing so, if I'd looked there before, however, I would have seen Mike's post.

[Option1]

As it was for several of us when Mike reappeared a couple of weeks ago, Ray.

+1

Neil

[FerrariV12]

Maybe it's the sort of result we should bear in mind when we harp on about 'the good old days', six classified finishers from nineteen starters, the sixth man seven laps behing Jim Clark, who hadn't had to push for the second half of the race, and was almost coasting at the end to save his borrowed engine.

That's all from a contemporary Motor Racing race report, sounds really gripping, doesn't it? The winner took home $20,000, which was considerably more than that year's champion Jack Brabham got for winning four races in Europe.

At the risk of going off on a tangent - and maybe this deserves its own thread - but I've never been that obsessed with the "close racing" that F1 has thrown up over the past decade or so.

Maybe part of that is when I was first getting into the sport as a kid it was in the era of first McLaren-Honda and then Williams-Renault domination, the on-screen graphics of the time did a far better job of monitoring the gaps between cars than they do now and I'd always watch thinking enthusiastically "how big a win can Senna/Mansell/etc. get this time? How many cars can they lap?". Motor sport seems to be the only one that beats up on itself in this regard, a 7 or 8 goal win in football or a similarly weighted score in rugby or whatever doesn't get slammed as "boring" even if by nature it is over as a sporting contest long before the end.

I also enjoyed the high attrition of the past, in fact it was one thing that meant even if the leader was a minute ahead, the race wasn't won because his engine could go pop at any second.

And while F1 has sort of ruined itself lately, I can still happily watch Le Mans where cars can win by whole laps and not be bored of it.

You do have a good point though for anyone who might watch highlights of Monza '71 on YouTube and think "WOW! all races back then were really exciting! Let's make DRS even more effective to recreate it!" No - it was a rare (and therefore special and meaningful) occurrence, hence why it's been uploaded and viewed so many times.

For me the "good old days" simply means back when the sport was a pure competition of car and driver, regardless if the result was by today's standards "boring" - rather than constant manipulation to get more viewers.

Edited by FerrariV12, 20 January 2012 - 15:14.

[Michael Ferner]

For me the "good old days" simply means back when the sport was a pure competition of car and driver, regardless if the result was by today's standards "boring" - rather than constant manipulation to get more viewers.

Hear, hear. Races were always exciting, whether the first car crossed the line a second or minute ahead of number two, or even several laps to the good. Today's races are boring, because the outcome is no longer the result of competition. It's about as exciting as watching a dice roll.