62 replies to this topic

[Glank27]

Hi,

I am a Gilles Villeneuve fan, and so all the material i can possibly find, will find itsway in my home and collection.
Although the accident that cost his life is a sad event, i still try to find material concerning the accident. With the accident never seen entirely on TV (the part when the Ferrari touches the March and the first cartwheels are missing), makes it more mysterious and dramatic for those who like me weren`t present at the track at the Terlamen section of the Zolder race track.
I have found only one rare photo, taken just seconds or minutes after the crash, and showing Gilles still with the seat attached to his back. For the rest i only have the magazines of the time.
Magazines at the time have spoken also of an amateur filming by a dutch spectator that refused to hand to autorithies and TV stations, but after 26 years time, i doubt of its existance.
I`d like to have some links or some info were i can get material on the tragic accident that cost the life of my favourite driver of all time.

[F1Fanatic.co.uk]

http://forums.autosp...rder=descending

[Steve L]

A bit of a morbid subject perhaps, but I'm sure you will find all you are looking for on the Youtube internet site.

There is a huge amount of great material on there, but also a lot which is very distasteful.

[eldougo]

[RobertE]

This, surely, is ghoulish in the extreme. The footage I saw at the time, once I had worked out what I was actually looking at, was distressing in the extreme.

Leave it alone!

[BerndRos]

Try doing as I , Go to Zolder on a quite day , walk or cycle to the corner , wait till no ones around , listen to JV on your I POD and contemplate on G V and the sadness !!

[Manfred Cubenoggin]

Glank27:

As a BRAND NEW member here @ TNF, you could have done a lot better than initiating this kind of thread.

You'll get no further input from me.

[fines]

Sorry, I can't help, but I'd wish those who don't want to help would at least have the decency to stop admonishing new posters here. It is very poor manners to play the Moral Police, what's so diffcult about keeping shut?

[Gary Davies]

Hear, hear, fines.

[Glank27]

Sorry if i may have burst you in sadness, but i`ve seen also several talks and gossip on the villeneuve accident on here as well; without no one getting blamed as all have done to me!

[Manfred Cubenoggin]

It's called tact, fines, Vanwall.

You don't start off your career here @ TNF by posting such.

Who annointed you two as Pope?

[HDonaldCapps]

Originally posted by Manfred Cubenoggin
Who annointed you two as Pope?

They are merely cardinals acting they see fit...

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Manfred Cubenoggin
It's called tact, fines, Vanwall.

You don't start off your career here @ TNF by posting such.....

Sorry mate...

The lack of tact is yours. His lack is merely experience.

[Manfred Cubenoggin]

In your exalted opinion, RB.

I very much doubt I'll bother opening this thread again but I will leave you with this...

If this were a motorsports club holding meetings for its members in a hall and a noob signed up and at one of the first meetings he attends, he stands up to ask, 'Anybody got some pix of GV getting his brains smashed out?', I don't think I'd too terriby impressed. If you don't agree with my sentiments, well, then, that's where you're coming from too, I guess.

You know, it's not this thread that is the straw that breaks the camel's back but I see in broad trend throughout this forum that it is rapidly becoming less and less important as a daily stop in my travels.

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
His lack is merely experience.

.... and knowledge.

Glank27 is by no means young, but he's a whippersnapper compared to us greybeards. He was only five when Gilles died, so probably doesn't - indeed can't - appreciate the carnage that was racing in the period before about 1985. Sadly, we can - I see where you're coming from, MC, but I do feel your reaction was a trifle (shall we say) over the top.

I doubt Glank27's interest is as morbid as some.

And F1Fanatic.co.uk's list of Gilles threads - unfortunately - has to be incomplete, since I recall several other threads which began promisingly but usually descended into pointless arguments and which ended up being deleted. :

[Hugewally]

Originally posted by Manfred Cubenoggin
It's called tact, fines, Vanwall.

You don't start off your career here @ TNF by posting such.

And just how would a new person know NOT to do as such? Its not like its written anywhere...

Give the new guy a break...

[eldougo]

What the F--k is Search BB for let them use it their own time and stop posting such CRAP.

[Formula Once]

To me, TNF's value is not just in the questions, but also in the answers. And I have seen some strange 'answers' in this thread. Glank27, a new member, has simply asked something which has been asked here before with regard to a number of accidents, so a slightly warmer and more balanced welcome would have made a lot more sense.

As for footage of 'the Dutch spectator', I had never heard that one. I do have other drivers' view - including that of Jochen Mass - on what happened and if you want Glank27 I can post them here.

Finally, I always thought that not much attention was ever paid to how 'easily' the 126C2 broke up in the accident (and later Pironi's crash at Hockenheim), only Nelson Piquet at the time made some comments about it (and angered Enzo Ferrari by doing so). The discussion after Zolder focused more on the dangers of wingcars in general and qualifying tyres. I have had a change to study a 126C2 up close many times recently and of course it looks fragile in the way any old(er) car does, but it does not look more dangerous than other non-carbon/kevlar cars of those days. Niki Lauda in the late seventies always claimed that his Ferrari's were safer than most British cars (and that he thought he wouldn't have survived Nürburgring in one of those). Would the arrival of Harvey Poslethwaite (in 1981) have made a difference in Ferrari's basic chassis design? Overall, though, I think in the end many drivers were just lucky to survive accidents in these cars in those days (like Mass at Paul Ricard that year for example) and Gilles simply wasn't.

I always understood that the fact that Gilles' car, at one point during the crash, landed on its nose head first - and the nose 'getting stuck' into the earth on the right hand side of the track - caused the car to brake in two (its entire front end braking away) resulting in Gilles being thrown out as the car rolled on.

[ghinzani]

Originally posted by Formula Once


Finally, I always thought that not much attention was ever paid to how 'easily' the 126C2 broke up in the accident (and later Pironi's crash at Hockenheim), only Nelson Piquet at the time made some comments about it (and angered Enzo Ferrari by doing so). The discussion after Zolder focused more on the dangers of wingcars in general and qualifying tyres. I have had a change to study a 126C2 up close many times recently and of course it looks fragile in the way any old(er) car does, but it does not look more dangerous than other non-carbon/kevlar cars of those days. Niki Lauda in the late seventies always claimed that his Ferrari's were safer than most British cars (and that he thought he wouldn't have survived Nürburgring in one of those). Would the arrival of Harvey Poslethwaite (in 1981) have made a difference in Ferrari's basic chassis design? Overall, though, I think in the end many drivers were just lucky to survive accidents in these cars in those days (like Mass at Paul Ricard that year for example) and Gilles simply wasn't.

I always understood that the fact that Gilles' car, at one point during the crash, landed on its nose head first - and the nose 'getting stuck' into the earth on the right hand side of the track - caused the car to brake in two (its entire front end braking away) resulting in Gilles being thrown out as the car rolled on.

Thats a great point, the 126C2 did not get much in the way of criticism, yet it folded up in GV's and Pironis crashes. Contrast this with Palletis Osella, which similarly folded up and for which Enzo and his little team was villified. OK granted probably only the carbon MP4 of those years cars was really able to stand big impacts, but the fact that nobody was prepared to criticise the Ferrari for the way it held up is unforgiveable from a journalistic point of view alone. Gilles or Didier should have been WDC in '82, their cars lack of strength contributed greatly to that not happening.

Welcome Glank by the way...

[fines]

I am neither a pope nor a cardinal, in fact I am entirely indifferent to religion on a personal level since I think it's an utter waste of time, notwithstanding the fact that I believe that, on a socio-cultural level, religion is the plague of mankind. But I understand this is not at all what you were getting on about, it's just that you haven't yet grasped the concept of ethics, and since religious groups have traditionally gone to lengths to monopolize ethics for their own purposes, people without a fundamental understanding of ethics continually confuse it with religion. It's not the same thing, in fact there is NO causal connection at all!

As to answer the gist of your question, I often take the liberty to express my thoughts (ethical or otherwise) merely in the best philosophical tradition, i.e. in the belief that entering a discourse or an argument will (or, at least, can) lead to mental reflection, which can only be a good thing, for it means that people start to think about something instead of taking on views or opinions. It is not always appreciated, I know, but I can't help myself...;)

Back to the thread...

I, for one, do recall a lot of criticism about the build quality of the Ferrari in the press at the time, but unfortunately I can't be more specific atm. But I believe the criticism began already in May, and reached a high in August...

[nivola]

I wasnt born at the time but from the vids that I have seen and we have all seen (It brings a tear to my eye)
the car dug in and that was it. I dont think the car was infact weak as such. Some part has to go when the front stops dead and you have so much weight behind you.

The Reverse is what happened to poor young Stefan Bellof.

We all got to remember that sometimes when your number is up it is up.

Think of poor Tony Renna (?) at inday a couple of years back.

Yes the first poster could of been more tactfull but some could say that about the other posts to.

[Marcel Visbeen]

I also recall contemporary criticism and I also remember we've discussed this already at TNF.
Most of it is in this thread:
Villeneuve, Zolder and seatbelts (merged)

Maybe we continue the discussion overthere and leave this thread alone, to cool down?

[Glank27]

'Anybody got some pix of GV getting his brains smashed out?', I don't think I'd too terriby impressed. If you don't agree with my sentiments, well, then, that's where you're coming from too, I guess.

My interest isn`t in seeing what you have described above Manfred Cubenoggin. In my field of work i`ve seen lot of, as you called them, "smashed out brains". My interest as i said rises up (just like it does to anyone), in view of the dramatic circumstances of the accident which is still not viewed completely, and the bizarre way in which the car disintegrated.
Thanks "Formula Once" and "Ghinzani" for making me welcome on this forum.
And to those all who have criticized my maiden post, let me tell you that Gilles Villeneuve was my first hero, my boyhood icon.....at the time however i was too young to understand all the physics involved in motor racing, and i stuck to the legend which was already there even before his tragic death. I am very offended in hearing that i`d like to see how Gilles smahed out his brains at Zolder. Its not true.
The accident and its subsequent death, are still tragic for all of us who love motor racing, but although being sad, its the date of the 8th May that is always remembered every year to mark the anniversary of a tragic event. So for all those who have criticized and mocked my post, go on all the various internet sites to blame the remembering of a tragic date in the history of motorsport. I have never seen the 1st of July being celebrated as an anniversary, (for those who think that know it all on Gilles, 1st July 1979; is the date of the Dijon duel). What i`m trying to say is that, yes, in our memories, Gilles exploits on track are those that come to mind first, but the tragic end in Belgium, is an important event that is always remembered. Simply asking for photos, i`m not seeing it as "shocking". All the books at home i have about Gilles, all have pictures of the Zolder tragedy....and i didn`t get offended by their publication.

[Dave Ware]

I was in France at the time and I remember seeing, on French TV, a replay of the accident. To the best of my memory, it showed the entire accident, starting before the two cars touched and everything afterwards.

So footage existed, and supposedly still exists somewhere. Whether it could be located and obtained is another question.

Glad to see some people standing up for Glank27. I did not think that his original post and question was inappropriate. Others are entitled to their opinions, as is everyone.

[Glank27]

thanks dave. well honestly i think you`ve seen the filming everyone else did. Actually the cameras were on the 27 ferrari all time, from the start of the fateful lap, the only part missing is when the ferrari flies up in the air, and gets out of the camera visible field, thus preventing to get on tape the moment which the ferrari hits the first time the ground, supposedly nose first.

[fines]

Originally posted by Dave Ware
I was in France at the time and I remember seeing, on French TV, a replay of the accident. To the best of my memory, it showed the entire accident, starting before the two cars touched and everything afterwards.

Memory can play strange tricks...

I remembered it the same way, until I saw a U Tube clip recently - clearly my mind was making up the parts that weren't shown! :

[RStock]

Originally posted by ghinzani


Thats a great point, the 126C2 did not get much in the way of criticism, yet it folded up in GV's and Pironis crashes. Contrast this with Palletis Osella, which similarly folded up and for which Enzo and his little team was villified. OK granted probably only the carbon MP4 of those years cars was really able to stand big impacts, but the fact that nobody was prepared to criticise the Ferrari for the way it held up is unforgiveable from a journalistic point of view alone. Gilles or Didier should have been WDC in '82, their cars lack of strength contributed greatly to that not happening.

Welcome Glank by the way...

Good points about the cars design . Postlethwaite's 126C2 was using epoxies where once were welds , and no doubt contributed to the severity of the crash . I've seen many say Gilles was driving over his head that day in order to best Pironi , which may or may not be true . But the car coming apart is the biggest factor in his demise . And Pironi's latter injuries also .

[Jerome]

That the Ferrari came apart that today, doesn't neccesarily mean it was an unsafe car for that time. The G-forces had increased considerably that year because the designers understood better and better how to work the venturi-channels, and also more frequent use of composite materials. (Which could make the car stronger and saver, but not yet at that time).

The cars became lighter, the turbo's more potent, and the venturi-downforce became stronger. That all worked together in creating very, very spectacular crashes that year. Indeed, don't forget Pironi's accident. But Jochen Mass at Ricard (flew over the fence), De Cesaris (who else?) at several instances?

The FIA at the end of the year rightfully decided to ban the ventur-wingcar. I think except for the Brabham, most F1 cars of 1982 would have split open like a banana in a crash like that of Gilles Villeneuve.

[Glank27]

The 126C2 was decided to be built using aluminium honeycomb by Hexcel (a belgian factory), cause in the words of Postlewhaite, the move to carbon fibre monocoque technology was a step that Ferrari technically still werent` prepared for. So he opted for the use of honeycomb aluminum which was glued instead of rivoted (like the 1981 126C). Infact Ferrari moved to carbon technology a year later, in 1983.
The Zolder and Hockenheim accident, did infact arise disputes on the safety of the Ferrari, however one must keep in mind that the accidents were of aircraft proportions, rather than cars.
I have an article dated June 1982, published in the weekly italian magazine "Autosprint" which shows pictures of the 126C2 Zolder wreck; in which its stated that the backplate of the seat completely got stuck off the monocoque because of two reasons:
1- Becasue of the torsion force suffered by the car when "diving" into the soily ground, on the side of terlamen.
2- The forward force of Gilles` head (+helmet) when the car hit the ground. It was calculated that this force was around 3000kg, since the brackets that hold the seat belt to the back plate (just under the roll-bar) were tested to be prone to breakage at 1800kg. Being two brackets, it was calculated that the force on them was that of 1500kg each, since both showed signs of "stress" due to the forces involved (this means that the forces involved were closing to the previously mind-assuring 1800kg limit!)
With a force of 3000kg, the backplate epoxy attachment, couldn`t withstand, and simply got off the monocoque.....
The article, closes in saying that, if the back plate wouldn`t have de-stuck itself, and Gilles would still have been in the car during the cartwheeling effect, at one point (and this can be seen in the filming) the wreckage hits the ground at the proximity of where the driver legs should have been, with the consequence of immediate amputation....This means, that, that kind of accident with that kind of cars was difficult not to be of fatal end. Perhaps a carbon car (like McLaren at that time) could have resisted somehow.
I think that, Gilles` accident played a vital role in rendering the cars safe. With the introduction of turbos, skirts, and wing cars, the performance of the cars was increasing very rapidly, while the safety technology was still weak. The proportions of the accident at Zolder was probably unthinkable just thre or four years earlier; and when it happened showed that serious measures had to be taken in order to have F1 racers as fast as they were but at the same time, safe.

[Jim Thurman]

I find it interesting that while Glank was responded to rather harshly, there is a far more blatant (and dare I say, disturbing) posting along the same lines in another thread ("Bizarre and strange accidents..."), which has passed with little comment.

[Marcel Visbeen]

Originally posted by Glank27
The 126C2 was decided to be built using aluminium honeycomb by Hexcel (a belgian factory), cause in the words of Postlewhaite, the move to carbon fibre monocoque technology was a step that Ferrari technically still werent` prepared for. So he opted for the use of honeycomb aluminum which was glued instead of rivoted (like the 1981 126C). Infact Ferrari moved to carbon technology a year later, in 1983.
The Zolder and Hockenheim accident, did infact arise disputes on the safety of the Ferrari, however one must keep in mind that the accidents were of aircraft proportions, rather than cars.
I have an article dated June 1982, published in the weekly italian magazine "Autosprint" which shows pictures of the 126C2 Zolder wreck; in which its stated that the backplate of the seat completely got stuck off the monocoque because of two reasons:
1- Becasue of the torsion force suffered by the car when "diving" into the soily ground, on the side of terlamen.
2- The forward force of Gilles` head (+helmet) when the car hit the ground. It was calculated that this force was around 3000kg, since the brackets that hold the seat belt to the back plate (just under the roll-bar) were tested to be prone to breakage at 1800kg. Being two brackets, it was calculated that the force on them was that of 1500kg each, since both showed signs of "stress" due to the forces involved (this means that the forces involved were closing to the previously mind-assuring 1800kg limit!)
With a force of 3000kg, the backplate epoxy attachment, couldn`t withstand, and simply got off the monocoque.....
The article, closes in saying that, if the back plate wouldn`t have de-stuck itself, and Gilles would still have been in the car during the cartwheeling effect, at one point (and this can be seen in the filming) the wreckage hits the ground at the proximity of where the driver legs should have been, with the consequence of immediate amputation....This means, that, that kind of accident with that kind of cars was difficult not to be of fatal end. Perhaps a carbon car (like McLaren at that time) could have resisted somehow.
I think that, Gilles` accident played a vital role in rendering the cars safe. With the introduction of turbos, skirts, and wing cars, the performance of the cars was increasing very rapidly, while the safety technology was still weak. The proportions of the accident at Zolder was probably unthinkable just thre or four years earlier; and when it happened showed that serious measures had to be taken in order to have F1 racers as fast as they were but at the same time, safe.

If you take some time to read the thread I mentioned in my earlier post you will find out that this has all been discussed earlier, including the very Autosprint-article you mention.
As F1Fanatic pointed out: before you start a new thread please use the search BB-button and post in the exsisting thread.

[Barry Boor]

Welcome to the forum.

Please check your Private Messages folder.

[Jerome]

Originally posted by Glank27
The 126C2 was decided to be built using aluminium honeycomb by Hexcel (a belgian factory), cause in the words of Postlewhaite, the move to carbon fibre monocoque technology was a step that Ferrari technically still werent` prepared for. So he opted for the use of honeycomb aluminum which was glued instead of rivoted (like the 1981 126C). Infact Ferrari moved to carbon technology a year later, in 1983.
The Zolder and Hockenheim accident, did infact arise disputes on the safety of the Ferrari, however one must keep in mind that the accidents were of aircraft proportions, rather than cars.
I have an article dated June 1982, published in the weekly italian magazine "Autosprint" which shows pictures of the 126C2 Zolder wreck; in which its stated that the backplate of the seat completely got stuck off the monocoque because of two reasons:
1- Becasue of the torsion force suffered by the car when "diving" into the soily ground, on the side of terlamen.
2- The forward force of Gilles` head (+helmet) when the car hit the ground. It was calculated that this force was around 3000kg, since the brackets that hold the seat belt to the back plate (just under the roll-bar) were tested to be prone to breakage at 1800kg. Being two brackets, it was calculated that the force on them was that of 1500kg each, since both showed signs of "stress" due to the forces involved (this means that the forces involved were closing to the previously mind-assuring 1800kg limit!)
With a force of 3000kg, the backplate epoxy attachment, couldn`t withstand, and simply got off the monocoque.....
The article, closes in saying that, if the back plate wouldn`t have de-stuck itself, and Gilles would still have been in the car during the cartwheeling effect, at one point (and this can be seen in the filming) the wreckage hits the ground at the proximity of where the driver legs should have been, with the consequence of immediate amputation....This means, that, that kind of accident with that kind of cars was difficult not to be of fatal end. Perhaps a carbon car (like McLaren at that time) could have resisted somehow.
I think that, Gilles` accident played a vital role in rendering the cars safe. With the introduction of turbos, skirts, and wing cars, the performance of the cars was increasing very rapidly, while the safety technology was still weak. The proportions of the accident at Zolder was probably unthinkable just thre or four years earlier; and when it happened showed that serious measures had to be taken in order to have F1 racers as fast as they were but at the same time, safe.

Interesting post, thank you. I always like that when I post something, as a layman, there's always an expert following it up with scientific details!

Keep up the good work!

[Simpson RX1]

Originally posted by Jim Thurman
I find it interesting that while Glank was responded to rather harshly, there is a far more blatant (and dare I say, disturbing) posting along the same lines in another thread ("Bizarre and strange accidents..."), which has passed with little comment.

I just find it interesting that a few people aren't preparred to acknowledge that a subconcious part of what makes watching motorsport interesting, is the danger element.

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that a fan of any racing driver might have a certain amount of curiosity about the method of their death.

And anyway, why should we shy away from footage of fatal accidents? it's only by watching such things that we remind ourselves of why things have changed and educate those, who weren't around at the time, about what drivers used to be up against and why they aren't now.

I find it odd that I can look in virtually any daily newspaper and see the gory results of war and social violence, but some people here think we shouldn't be allowed to see what happened to a 'mere' sportsman, a sportsman that very well knows what he's getting himself into.

I vividly remember GP International's coverage of Didier Pironi's major smash and seeing the still shots of him just after the accident, having had his helmet removed, sitting in a smoking wreck of a car with his legs broken and bleeding and the look of pain and anguish on his face; I don't recall anybody complaining about that at the time, but now, in a supposedly more enlightened and permissive society, why should somebody be berated for wanting to find out more about an accident that happened more than 25 years ago?

[TrackDog]

Originally posted by Simpson RX1



I just find it interesting that a few people aren't preparred to acknowledge that a subconcious part of what makes watching motorsport interesting, is the danger element.

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that a fan of any racing driver might have a certain amount of curiosity about the method of their death.

And anyway, why should we shy away from footage of fatal accidents? it's only by watching such things that we remind ourselves of why things have changed and educate those, who weren't around at the time, about what drivers used to be up against and why they aren't now.

I find it odd that I can look in virtually any daily newspaper and see the gory results of war and social violence, but some people here think we shouldn't be allowed to see what happened to a 'mere' sportsman, a sportsman that very well knows what he's getting himself into.

I vividly remember GP International's coverage of Didier Pironi's major smash and seeing the still shots of him just after the accident, having had his helmet removed, sitting in a smoking wreck of a car with his legs broken and bleeding and the look of pain and anguish on his face; I don't recall anybody complaining about that at the time, but now, in a supposedly more enlightened and permissive society, why should somebody be berated for wanting to find out more about an accident that happened more than 25 years ago?

I remember that the Indianapolis Star ran a photo of Gilles laying in state in Montreal just after his funeral, and there was outrage from readers that such a morbid display was allowed to appear in print, manifested by several angry letters to the editor. My own personal feeling was that since I couldn't possibly make the trip to Montreal to attend the funeral of my hero, seeing his face one last time, looking so peaceful was the next best thing. It was the best choice for the vast majority of Gilles' fans to be able to achieve some sense of closure; and in the case of someone so well-known and loved by so many, it was the only logical choice, and although a very dramatic image, it was entirely tasteful and appropriate.


Here in America, the vast majority of the population is very reserved and probably a little 'soft' when it comes to images such as this...they don't have the stomach for such scenes. But...it is necessary to view vivid images once in a while to keep in perspective just what can be at stake in the course of events that we all take for granted. Things come too easily for us Yankees[ or at least they used to...], I think.

I'm still in awe of the naivete of the racing community regarding the rules, regulations and preparation of equipment[race cars and otherwise] that led to the disaster that was the 1964 Indianapolis 500. I mean, what were they thinking? Rehashing the gory details may seem like a morbid waste of time to some, but for me, the result has been a much better understanding of why things are the way they are today, and a great deal of thankfulness that "the good old days" are long gone.

Gilles' tragic accident at Zolder was no different in that regard. Rehashing it only strenghthens the fast that things are much better today.

Nobody likes to remember the bad and bloody days, but we need to.


Dan

[john t]

Can someone clarify this but i seem to remember reading (what must have been Autosport) in the summer of '82 that the accident investigation into Gilles' death concludeed that the car broke up so easily in a 'freak accident' that was unlikely to happen again.......Therefore any deficiancy of design was explained as thus.
Then Hockemheim arrived and an absolute carbon copy transpired..........

[Simpson RX1]

Originally posted by john t
Can someone clarify this but i seem to remember reading (what must have been Autosport) in the summer of '82 that the accident investigation into Gilles' death concludeed that the car broke up so easily in a 'freak accident' that was unlikely to happen again.......Therefore any deficiancy of design was explained as thus.
Then Hockemheim arrived and an absolute carbon copy transpired..........

It wasn't an 'absolute carbon copy' in a number of ways, not least the fact that Pironi survived and Villeneuve didn't.

IIRC, Villeneuve was on a hot lap, in perfectly clear and dry conditions, and arrived at a corner to find Jochen Mass in the way; Mass took the line that is accepted as racing etiquette (if you're on the racing line in a corner, stick to it and let the faster guy pass you on the outside), Gilles took the same line and the two collided, a simple racing accident/misunderstanding that lead to the death of one driver, and the villification of another, for many years afterwards.

In Pironi's case, it was a very wet practice, he pulled out to pass a slower Derek Daly, and, unsighted, smashed into a similarly slow Alain Prost, in much the same way that Michael Schumacher came out of the mist and took his right front corner off on the back of David Coulthard's car, a few years later.

Pironi ended up sitting on the infield, very much alive, but in the smoking wreck of a mostly (except for the front end) intact car.

Did I remember all that right?

[Paul Taylor]

This is what Murray Walker had to say about Pironi's accident the day after it happened.

Travelling at some 180mph, as he approached the Motordrom, Didier Pironi suddenly, in a solid wall of spray, came across Alain Prost's Renault and in a hideous repeat of Gilles Villeneuve's Ferrari Belgian Grand Prix accident, Pironi's Ferrari took off, flew through the air, nose dived into the ground and into the armco.

Marshalls said he was doing 150mph at the time and flipped three times before crashing down into the ground. I've heard some accounts that say the car flew as high as the tree tops.

[Catalina Park]

Anyone that thinks that there was some sort of deficiency in the Ferrari chassis should really look at all the cars of the era. The T4 chassis was plane scary to look at but it won a championship. The C2 chassis was a masterpiece by comparison.

[zakeriath]

Didnt Schmacher refuse to drive any Ferrari`s made before 1990 even for demonstration purposes because he thought they were too dangerous.

[alansart]

Originally posted by Simpson RX1


In Pironi's case, it was a very wet practice, he pulled out to pass a slower Derek Daly, and, unsighted, smashed into a similarly slow Alain Prost, in much the same way that Michael Schumacher came out of the mist and took his right front corner off on the back of David Coulthard's car, a few years later.

Pironi ended up sitting on the infield, very much alive, but in the smoking wreck of a mostly (except for the front end) intact car.

Did I remember all that right?

I was looking for some stuff on Pironi a few months ago for a painting. Google images comes up with a few pics of the aftermath of his accident. He was lucky to be alive.

That whole period, where the driver was as far forward in the car as possible, were dangerous days.

[Glank27]

The main difference from Gilles` accident was that at Hockenheim, Didier`s Ferrari hit the ground at the rear end of the car, unlike Gilles nose first dive. I think that it made some big difference in the overall wreck of the car.

[cheesy poofs]

Originally posted by zakeriath
Didnt Schmacher refuse to drive any Ferrari`s made before 1990 even for demonstration purposes because he thought they were too dangerous.

No. After driving Patrick Tambay's 1983 126C3 back in early 2000's, Schumacher said he thought those cars were dangerous and cold not image crashing in one of them.

[HDonaldCapps]

From George MacDonald Fraser in Quartered Safe Out Here, pp. xix-xx:

"You cannot, you must not, judge the past by the present; you must try to see it in its own terms and values, if you are to have any inkling of it. You may not like what you see, but do not on that account fall into the error of trying to adjust it to suit your own vision of what it ought to have been."

In 1982, there was surprisingly little discussion of the accident itself, at least open discussion in the media or in the letters to editors. There was certainly little review of the accident over and over as is possible today, very few at that time having VCR machines at home to tape races or play tapes of the incident, all that coming later.

At the time, the focus was more on the void left by the death of Gilles Villenueve on racing rather than on the physics or dynamics of the crash itself. Later on there was some discussion on the accident itself, but at that time it all passed over relatively quickly. Perhaps introspection was lacking at the time or simply an acceptance that these things still happened in racing.

Racing was still very dangerous in 1982, new attitudes concerning risk and risk assessment were just beginning to take hold at that time.

On the comments made by the cardinals, I think that those who were contemporary followers of motor racing at that time took Gilles' death quite hard. There is a natural avoidance of unpleasant topics that seems to be often overlooked or dismissed, even if it is old-fashioned and not in line with the current mania for digging into everything. I understand and accept both points of view. No one said this was easy or that you have to be slavishly consistent

[fines]

Thank you, Don, for a very well written post!

I also do "understand and accept both points of view", but what I don't understand (and cannot accept!) is the admonishment that almost invariably ensues when such an "unpleasant topic" gets discussed. That's what got me started in this case, and what gets me started time and time again.

If people who don't want to discuss these things would shun threads like this one upon discovery of its content and purpose, instead of starting to admonish participants of these discussions, both "points of view" could have their peace! No one forces you to read everything here!

TNF is a great community, but not one that couldn't be any better. Thank you for listening.

[Jerome]

Originally posted by fines
Thank you, Don, for a very well written post!

I also do "understand and accept both points of view", but what I don't understand (and cannot accept!) is the admonishment that almost invariably ensues when such an "unpleasant topic" gets discussed. That's what got me started in this case, and what gets me started time and time again.

If people who don't want to discuss these things would shun threads like this one upon discovery of its content and purpose, instead of starting to admonish participants of these discussions, both "points of view" could have their peace! No one forces you to read everything here!

TNF is a great community, but not one that couldn't be any better. Thank you for listening.

Great Post, Don. And Fines: especially about this subject I started a thread a couple of months back. In this thread, I asked the question: if we don't show the aftermaths of dangerous accidents, aren't we closing our eyes for the reality of our favourite sport? That thread got very heated as well, there was one poster calling me a ghoul... etc. Perhaps it would be of interest if you look it up.

[Flat Black]

Racing accidents are part of the historical record. As such, they are worthy of study and discussion. Moreover, they are intrinsically fascinating, whether we want to admit it or not. Automobiles moving at incredible speeds smacking into walls and one another are just visually spectacular. Doesn't mean that you want the accidents to happen, but when they do, you have a hard time averting your gaze.

[Glank27]

flat black,.....very true

[fines]

Originally posted by Jerome
Great Post, Don. And Fines: especially about this subject I started a thread a couple of months back. In this thread, I asked the question: if we don't show the aftermaths of dangerous accidents, aren't we closing our eyes for the reality of our favourite sport? That thread got very heated as well, there was one poster calling me a ghoul... etc. Perhaps it would be of interest if you look it up.

Found the thread, read it... what can I say? A few interesting posts, yes, but mostly very predictable behaviour: a few who don't shy away from cruel footage, and a majority that is horrified - I could have told you that before... You don't change people's attitudes in these things, no matter how hard you argue; it's almost foolish to try (sorry)! I have my theories about the whys and wherefores, but it won't do anybody any good so I keep shut, especially since I don't have any problems with it. It also isn't at all what I was trying to convey here.

But, to answer your question from the thread: no, people are not closing their eyes if they don't want to see gruesome pictures and the like - there was a time when people had something called imagination. It's now become useless because we have TV and tabloid magazines, but in ancient times it was quite handy for mankind to survive...

[Edington Mains]

First off, I think its generally acknowledged that Gilles and didiers accident where of a similar nature.. the fact that they both happened to Ferraris is just one of those things and had either been driving that years MP4 the outcome would have been different... anyway..

http://www.radio-can...ortgilles.shtml

that's a link to a site, Tony is the father of a good friend of mine and was at the track that day (as can be read....) he actually still had Gilles helmet a couple of months after the crash but gave it back to Ferrari via the Belgian club..
As for Brains smashed out, that sort of stuff sickens me that an 'enthusiast' could be so critical of someone asking after the fate of a driver but then lacking the integrity to even get the facts correct, Gilles actually died of a Basilar fracture of the 3rd or 4th vertebrae.. similar to what claimed Dale in 2001.. I can guarantee that there was no blood as I have the pics to prove it.. and to quote Sid, Gilles looked asleep...

Glank, Gilles was a great driver, he was a good bloke too.. his legend is bigger than he was, partially because of the fact he died in a **** box Red car (still being run by an autocratic madman at the time) and also partially because of the work of a couple of Journos who blew that much smoke about his legend that he became a folk hero, something that Gilles would actually have detested...