34 replies to this topic

[Don Capps]

If any of you been following the Gilles Villeneuve Case at the Atlas F1 Court, there has been a decision announced.

[Bernd]

I just briefly perused the case and I have to say what a load of tosh!!! I can not even believe that they are proclaiming a holy F1 triumvirate of Fangio, Senna & Prost !!! as if it were a fact and not just an opinion.

EXCUSE me but I don't think so! both Clark and Ascari were far superior to Senna & Prost and Villeneuve while undeniably a very quick driver was certainly not a great. I certainly have no problem with Fangio but it seems to me that the only reason he was included in that triumvirate was the undeniable statistic of his 5 titles..

A more realistic triumvirate to my mind is

1. Clark
2. Fangio
3. Ascari

I would honestly put Gilles in the high 20's at most.

[oldtimer]

Bernd, this is not a court case, but can we draw you into giving some of the reasons for your list, which really means sharing some of your experiences of your chosen three. Maybe we can even draw Don into this, and then Wolf and I would be very happy at the least.

The times I saw Clark were at British GPs, and then the the races 'surrendered' (as I have seen it put on another thread) to him in the first lap. I was lucky enough to see him refuse to surrender a race, when low oil level caused to switch off his engine and whistle his way through Woodcote at a fair rate of knots with a dead throttle. Which wasn't spectacular, but still made you go,"Wow."

I wasn't fortunate enough to see Fangio in 'wow' situations, and never saw Ascari at all.

So I'd love to hear more...

[Bernd]

OK oldtimer you've hooked me I'll go briefly into my chosen top three. Bear in mind that I am much to young to have seen any of them in person Clark had been dead for 9 years when I was born. So I rely on evidence other than the Primary ie not having seen these drivers with my own eyes. I don't pick these three out of the blue so to speak I have a vast library and solid interest in classic motorsport and have since my early teens. I DID see Prost & Senna by the way whom I don't doubt were the greatest of their era.

1. Jim Clark - In my mind without a doubt Numero Uno. I have studied everything there is to read and talked to many people who witnessed Clark and all say that he was brilliant beyond belief. From the footage I have seen of him racing (pretty much all of it) he was visually much faster than anyone else while showing no apparent effort whatsoever. Jim drove in an era where the grids around him were full of champion drivers and he was acknowledged by all as the greatest. Fangio himself after taking an interest in Clark and studying his technique pronounced him the greatest ever in my mind this is the highest accolade possible. Also and very importantly is that Clark could hop into any vehicle and be faster than its owners in a couple of laps again without any problem for him. His talent was bottomless.
2. Juan Fangio - What can I say... Untouchable when things were right and almost as much so when they weren't. Moss one of the greatest himself could not really touch him and was proud to be beaten by him (how often has a driver said that) Slightly weaker in other forms of machinery ie Sportcars and the like. Really Fangio is a shue in.

3. Alberto Ascari - Faster than Fangio!!! Thats what was said at the time and Juan himself is said to have hinted that this was so. Tragically killed while in his prime just like Clark makes it hard to completely assess the both of them but the fact is that Ascari was an astonishingly quick in whatever he sat in a driver who could pull off wonders in a race car.

I look forward to your insights...

[jrosenzweig]

Hmmm it seems interesting that we can all argue who we think is the best driver. The proof can be derived from 2 ways i suppose, results, and sheer speed.

I will say right away that i don't really know much about Ascari so i can't comment there. My opinion on Fangio is that he was a superb driver but not always the fastest. Fangio was no hotlapper in my opinion. He would often find himself not in pole and still win the race. This i would have to say, makes him a superb racing driver. Just because your quick doesn't mean your great. Fangio had the stamina and something i can't put my finger on that always allowed himself to calculate himself to victory. Of course sometimes people did break down handing him the flag.

What about Nuvolari? He was fast but also very brave. How do you drive with a steering column and no wheel? i wouldn't do that for sure, its just nuts

OK, back to the BEST driver. To be the best you must have beaten somebody. So, i don't think anybody can be named the best unless they have BEATEN another world champion driver. I hate to sit between 2 stools but most WC never had it out with another WC, except Fangio and Ascari. This battle wasn't very long unfortunetely. I would simply say there is a list of GREAT drivers. They all appear to be during different eras as well. Thus another reason why i feel they cannot be compared.

[Bernd]

Jimmy Clark had

Graham Hill
Jack Brabham
John Surtees
Jackie Stewart
Jochen Rindt
Denny Hulme
Phil Hill

and a few others I've missed champions all and Clark consistantly did more than beat them he thoroughly blew them off. It is hard to compare drivers as well you say Jamie but I have no doubt in my mind that Jim Clark is the greatest racing driver of all time. For me the case is open shut no contest.

Please don't misunderstand that I'm saying he was perfect far from it but he had come the closer to the unattainable goal of perfection than any other driver before or since and probably ever.

Just as a postscript here are a few seriously fast drivers that Clark made a habit of beating. My point is that in his era there was an incredibly high standard of driving yet he was still head & shoulders above the rest. This is unqiue in my opinion. Fangio for example had Ascari then later Moss but not really any other serious competition that could really stretch him.

Chris Amon
Dan Gurney
Frank Matich

Well I feel I've made my case at least to myself anyway

[Bernd]

Originally posted by jrosenzweig

My opinion on Fangio is that he was a superb driver but not always the fastest. Fangio was no hotlapper in my opinion. He would often find himself not in pole and still win the race. This i would have to say, makes him a superb racing driver. Just because your quick doesn't mean your great. Fangio had the stamina and something i can't put my finger on that always allowed himself to calculate himself to victory. Of course sometimes people did break down handing him the flag.

What about Nuvolari? He was fast but also very brave. How do you drive with a steering column and no wheel? i wouldn't do that for sure, its just nuts

1st Fangio he was capable of doing whatever was needed to win as for your saying that he wasn't really a fast over one lap driver I couldn't disagree more. For example as Stirling Moss relates in a few interviews I've seen he says that whenever he would pip Fangio Juan would smile go out and take a bit more time off it would go back and forth until Moss either was incapable of going faster or just gave up in frustration. The point is he went as fast as he needed to go and if he needed to go all out Banshee fast that is how he went though he didn't like it. His pacer was Moss whom was the next fastest to himself so he was happier to be a 10th faster than a second faster because doing so entailed less unneccessary risk. A very canny & wise man he attributed his survival in that extremely dangerous era of Motor Sport to this strategy.

Nuvolari was a kamikaze driver in the vein of Rosemeyer and the catalyst for this thread Villeneuve he drove like a demon possessed and thoroughly annihilated the opposition when things went right... Nuvolari from all accounts literally knew no fear so braveness really doesn't come into it I think it is more a slightly unhinged mind personally Unlike Villeneuve his accomplishments certainly justify him as a great.

[Ray Bell]

I think it was merely a romantic notion, but I have read in a place or two that Nuvolari, as a devout (?) Catholic he couldn't commit suicide, but that he "reserved the right to risk his life on the track."

At the very end, that suggestion might make sense, but I don't know about him in the prime of his career. Would he really want to die?

[f li]

Bernd,

Perhaps we could start "Jim Clark, simply the BEST!" case? After all his stats are rather good - He was on top at the time of his death - Wouldn't Hill's WDC in 68 have been his, as well as Rindt's WDC in 70? He only competed in 73 GP's - Graham did 179!

[Bernd]

Well this is conjecture unfortunately 68 certainly but after that it is generally believed that Clark was looking at throttling back and maybe retiring altogether from Motor Sport. Though the thought of him in a 72 is very appealing once they had it worked out that was a truly great race car.

Rindt would have been a truly worthy team mate as well this can be shown by their battles in Formula 2 and The Tasman Series.

I don't believe I will start that case to many people from the RCF will flood the case with Senna, Prost rubbish which is very tiresome considering that most of them don't have a clue about anything prior to Prost or at most Lauda.

[AyePirate]

The whole thing is a bit silly.

What we are talking about are articles of faith, not provable facts, especially when you start talking about extrapolating truncated careers.
Like trying to settle the existense/non-existence of god with a court case. There can be a verdict, but no concrete settlement.

I have my list of greats (drivers, cars, teams, designers,owners, tracks)and you have yours.
This is a good thing,otherwise there would be
precious little to discuss.[p][Edited by AyePirate on 02-07-2001]

[oldtimer]

I'd like to pisk up Bernd's point about Fangio's approach of controlled pace. In the Moss thread, I retold a Jenk's account of the battle for pole position at Spa in 1956, with the emphasis on the reaction Fangio produced with his pole lap.

Another way of looking at the episode gives some insight, I believe, into Fangio's approach. He had been sitting on the pole when Moss went out and took about 3 seconds off Fangio's time. Such a big improvement naturally led people to wonder whether the issue was settled. Fangio then went out and took 4.9 seconds off Moss' time, which settled the issue well and truly.

My point is that Fangio had been sitting on a pole time about 8 seconds slower, AT LEAST, than he was capable of, waiting to see who could challenge it. What reserves was he playing with? We won't know, but I sometimes wonder whether the second half of the 1957 Nurburgring drive was the only time we saw Fangio extend himself pacewise after his 1952 accident.

Flicker directed us to a site which had an analysis of the Fangio vs Moss confrontation in the 1956-57 years. Looking in the 1957 year, there was not one race where Fangio was leading at the end of the first lap, not even at Rouen or the Nurburgring where he had showed a very clear advantage in practice. At Monaco, he felt there was trouble brewing amongst the English youngsters, and hung back from pole position. Moss started a chain reaction that took the youngsters out.

It all looks as though Fangio asked himself the question, "How fast can these guys go?" Then his answer was to go a bit faster when he had a car to do it. A very unusual talent in Grand Prix racing.

[Bernd]

Thankyou Oldtimer for an excellent example of my point.

[RedFever]

Bernd I think you are entirely off the mark.

First, Rich explained very clearly that the three, Fangio, Prost and Senna, were chosen to to pick three greats that had much success. He also explained that the list could have been much longer, but including Clark, Ascari, Moss, Stewart, etc. was not adding anything to the discussion. The point was: was Gilles a great driver or a one day sensation?

Also, you commit the same sin you accuse others. You list with Clark on top is completly based on your readings but you haven't even seen these guys race. Also, how do you compare Fangio to Clark when they raced in different periods? Also, your account on Nuvolari is utterly incorrect and you confuse competitive furor with mental instability. Ridiculous, specially considering the guy died in his bed due to illness and not racing.

[Bernd]

I was a joke Red about Nuvolari hence the I know he was not in the least crazy and was a bright, dignified man but people said that he was crazy at the time due to his spectacular fearless style.

I read the case as saying that Fangio, Prost & Senna were the top three of all time, and the question was whether Gilles should join them at the upper echelons of the sport which I simply do not believe should be the case.

Fangio himself said that Clark was better than him what more do you want it doesn't get clearer than that.

Judgements can be made without having witnessed events yourself Redfever have you ever heard of the entire field of History? Those historians do not actually see what they study and form hypothoses on. They use all available evidence to reach a conclusion. My list is no different.

But of course you are entitled to your opinion and I respect it.

Cheers
Bernd[p][Edited by Bernd on 02-07-2001]

[Gil Bouffard]

I am miffed. I had this really nice response going when I felt that I had to get a quote from another thread. Lost all my extremely literate and enlightening prose.

I will start with the old thread.

"12-25-2000 15:36
I remember telling someone, it may have been Dan Partel of EFDA, that I thought there was an agreement between Ferrari and Villeneuve that read. "We give you a racing car, bring it back, no matter how banged up it is." This was after watching the British GP on TV while in the SportHotel at the Nurburgring for the 1000km in 1981. GV had gotten "off line," at Woodcote and had taken out yards of catch fence and poles and was trying to drive out of the mess!

Same year: I saw him pack it in at the Osterreicherring after giving the whip to the Ferrari. It was up at the big sweeper on the far side of the circuit, in front of the stands. He stood there glaring at the car and started walking away. Descretion being the better part of valor, when I saw him later in the paddock, I thought it wise not to talk with him about his thoughts at that time. I think if he had had a gun, he would have shot that car right where it lay.

Gil"

Don Capps, Karl numerous others and I have had the joy (?) of observing some of the best Formula One drivers over the last forty (or so) years.

I think that Gilles Villeneuve was a talented driver(more in the Nuvolari mode). He had fire and was emotional, but he was not a great driver in the mold of Juan Manuel Fangio.

The Maestro was a thinking driver who shared an affinity with his race cars. He knew when the car was not well and he knew how to take care of it.

I don't think that the Maestro could make today's Ferrari sing as Michael Schumacher does. Nor, do I think that Mika Hakinnen would set out in a 250F Maserati with a broken seat and drive to victory from a deficit of almost a minute.

I like Oldtimer's quote "It all looks as though Fangio asked himself the question, "How fast can these guys go?" Then his answer was to go a bit faster when he had a car to do it. A very unusual talent in Grand Prix racing."

How many of today's stars could tell you what a big end is or where it is located?

In my military career, there were many times when I found myself responding to exterior stimulus, processing its implications and arriving at a course of action, "without thinking."

Similarly, the Maestro, in the 1950 GP of Monaco "noticed," that the spectators were concentrating on a section farther down the circuit and slowed. He picked his way through the wreckage of a multi-car crack up at Tobacconist Corner and went on to win the race.

Again in 1957, the Maestro observed that the spectators were not looking at him but rather the area of the chicane. Prudently, he slowed and worked his way past the carnage of Moss' Vanwall and the Ferraris of Collins and Hawthorn, going on to win the race.

Consider the Nurburgring in 57. Hawthorn and Collins have swept into the lead and are confidently divieing up the finishing positions, while the Maestro is shredding their lead. They were so taken aback when he pounced on them, that they were unprepared to fight back.

Stirling Moss says to this day, that he doesn't know if the Maestro let him win the GP of England in 1955.

That is why you may have heros from every era, but there is and will be only one Maestro.

Gil Bouffard

http://www.norpaccrows.org

[Ray Bell]

It's said, too, that Fangio had been looking the night before the race at a picture of the chicane pileup of the thirties... 36 was it?... and noted the spectators, remembering it the next day. I think that's in 'The Racing Driver' by Jenkinson.

Keen observation... and at racing speeds.

[fines]

And all a myth, to boot! I have seen a picture of Fangio and Villoresi approaching Tabac on lap 2, with a man standing IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TRACK, warning them of what was around the corner. A typical Fangio myth, IMHO.

Also, at Aintree he was clearly outdriven by Moss, who had PP, FL and MLL. Can't stand the mutterings about him letting Moss win, he was B-E-A-T-E-N! Simple as that.[p][Edited by fines on 02-08-2001]

[Bernd]

OK Fines if Fangio was beaten fair and square I'm sure Moss would be extremely happy and proud of his achievement but to this day Moss says he is not sure whether Fangio let him win or not. This leads me to believe that Fangio must have done something odd like maybe not accelerating out of a corner quickly or perhaps braking to much that caught Moss's attention and led to his suspicions. I'm sure that if Stirling honestly thought he beat the Maestro fair and square he would most definitely not cast doubt on it.

[Roger Clark]

We will, of course never know whether Fangio gfted the win to Moss at aintree. Fangio was far to diplomatic (or possibly political) to say. It is, however, interesting to compare their laps times over the last few laps of the race.

Lap 80 Moss 2'4.0 Fangio 2'3.2 Gap 2.6
Lap 81 Moss 2'3.2 Fangio 2'4.2 Gap 3.6
Lap 82 Moss 2'3.8 Fangio 2'2.8 Gap 2.6
Lap 83 Moss 2'4.6 Fangio 2'5.0 Gap 3.0
Lap 84 Moss 2'5.0 Fangio 2'4.6 Gap 2.6
Lap 85 Moss 2'5.2 Fangio 2'4.0 Gap 1.4
Lap 86 Moss 2'3.8 Fangio 2'4.6 Gap 2.2
Lap 87 Moss 2'4.2 Fangio 2'3.0 Gap 1.0
Lap 88 Moss 2'0.4 Fangio 2'2.8 Gap 3.4
Lap 89 Moss 2'5.0 Fangio 2'2.2 Gap 0.6
Lap 90 Moss 2'4.6 Fangio 2'4.2 Gap 0.2


My interpretation of this is that Moss was taking things relatively slowly from lap 80 to 87. Neubauer had given a PI (piano, or slow) signal at some time, according to reports. During this time Fangio was closing. Moss' 88th lap was the fastest of the race, 3-4 seconds faster than he had been lapping, and incidentally equal to his pole position time. After that Moss returned to his regular pace. Fangio's 89th lap was his fastest of the race but still almost 2 secs slower than Moss'.

[Ray Bell]

FEE-nes has gone out on a limb over these items, showing some kind of emotion... ain't it lovely?

I have no idea how to interpret those lap times, but now I worry about old Jenks... was there really a man on the track on lap 2... I would think that likely, but from pag3 111 (surprisingly easy to find!) of The Racing Driver comes the story:

"As an example of how anticipation can help the racing driver I would quote the 1950 Monte Carlo Grand Prix, when Farina, who was lying second on the opening lap, spun at the Harbour Corner and the rest of the field telescoped into him or came to rest. In the lead was Fangio, oblivious of what had happened behind him, and when he arrived on the next lap, only just over a minute and a half after the crash had happened, there was no warning of what lay round the bend, other than a high degree of excitement among the spectators before the corner - especially those who were too far before the corner to see what was going on. The flag marshals were in a high old flap and had abandoned their posts, so there was no official warning of the blocked road, but the agitation of the spectators made itself felt to Fangio as he approached and his anticipatory senses went through an interesting process. The first stimulus, by vision, was that something unusual had happened; as there was nothing unusual in sight on the approach to the corner he recalled that the evening before, while in the Automobile Club, he had been looking at some photographs of a multiple crash in the 1936 Monte Carlo race, and this combination of experience and association of ideas prompted him to slow much earlier than he would have done under normal circumstances and, by the time he arrived at a point where he could see round the corner, he was able to stop."

This record implies strongly that Jenkinson discussed the issue with Fangio, probably at the time so that he could record the details for his race report. So has Jenkinson been added to the list of those we can't trust?

BTW, I thought it was the chicane...

fines, I'd like to know more. Where is the photo?

[Roger Clark]

Jenkinson had not started regular reporting of Grands Prix in 1950. Motor Sport did not report that year's Monaco Grand Prix.

In "My racing Life" Fangio describes how, the night before the race had had been looking at pictures of the 1936 race: "After passing Farina, I covered the first lap and par tof the second without a hitch, until I passsed the harbour chicane and saw the yellow flag raised. A glance told me no one was looking at me. Instead of the white blobs of faces, I saw necks craned; I was in th elead, but people were looking to their right, which meant that something more interesting than the leading car must be happening at the bureau de Tabac. The photo I had seen at the AutomobileC;ub came back to me in a flash. THat's what saved me".[p][Edited by Roger Clark on 02-09-2001]

[oldtimer]

The story from "My Racing Life" is repeated in the DSJ edited book "Fangio".

Those Aintree lap times are interesting. I find it interesting that Moss thought it necessary to put in a very fast 88nd lap. Maybe not sure of what was going on? Even then, Fangio thought he would have a look at his instrument panel on the last lap.

An Atlas Court case?

[Ray Bell]

Maybe Stirling had lapped a slower car and took the opportunity to build a gap while Fangio was stuck behind it?

[Wolf]

Oldtimer- why a day in court for that matter? We're pretty able to elect few jury members ourselves, and in case we need to lynch someone we can always call a few RC regulars over.
And I don't think there is a case- the only evidence that may be relevant is, alas, burried with Maestro. And may I remind what Moss wrote in his book about that matter- '...If he did do it, it was very skilful, very subtle- but with Fangio, of course it would be. He did everything that way. That's why almost no one can be compared with him.'

[Wolf]

Yep, Ray- I remember him (Moss) also saying something in that line. BTW, earlier this night I was looking for that part to post it but stumbled upon the sentence which commented on him switching to 'racing mode' from his 'gay, usual self'.;) Oh man, how will I live with the disappointment?

[Ray Bell]

I sincerely hope you have no problem with that...

Could you dig up the reference?

Skilfully and subtly of course.

[Wolf]

OK, here it goes... Prompted by Ken Purdy about that race he replies:

'Ken, I honestly don't know. I can tell you that there was no pre-arrangement. Neubauer didn't run the team that way. Fangio might have done. I was running first, he was just behind me. I passed someone and I thought, right, here's my chance, and I drove like a maniac and opened up ground on him. Going into the last corner, I was still ahead of him and coming out I knew he couldn't make it. I pulled well over, I waved him to come through... but I knew he hadn't a chance without another 40 horsepower. Our cars were as nearly identical as Mercedes could build them and he hadn't the power to catch me.
'So, I don't know, and I never shall, I suppose, because certainly I wouldn't ask Fangio. The truth, as nearly as I can come to it, is that he could not have caught me at the end, but that he might have let me grab those few yards of the lead earlier on. [Here follows previously given quote, which concludes that matter]

* Italics are not mine- they appear in original text. Taken from 'All But My Life'

[Roger Clark]

I think the main interpretation of the Aintree lap times is that tey weren't racing. It is clear that Moss had 4-5 seconds in hand most of the time; this was true of the earlier laps which I didn't post. Any question of whether Fangio could have passed Moss on hte last corner,or the last lap, is therefore irrelevant.

[fines]

I have a complete picture sequence of the Monaco incident in 1950, photographed by Corrado Millanta and published by "Das Auto". Next time I'll get my hands on a scanner I'll post them. Wait for it!

[fines]

Ok guys, here comes:



(This picture and the following from this angle are credited to Alfa Romeo and can be found in Jean-Paul Delsaux' "1950 - The Year, The Races", p59) The crash has just happened, and Farina is about to climb out. Fagioli is hit broadside by Rosier, while Sommer just nips through.



The rest piles in while Fagioli jumps out.



(Now Millanta's pictures from the other side, "Das Auto" 12/1950, p396/7. Spot the photographer of the other pictures!) The clearing of the track is in full swing, but...



... already the leaders appear on their second lap. Maybe Fangio is too busy looking at the spectators to notice the man with the flag?



Hectic nervousness sets in!



Fangio is confronted with a blocked track...



... as Villoresi draws alongside. HISTORIC OCCASION: The first time a Ferrari takes the lead of a WC race, if only for a few seconds...;)



Fangio has reversed and slipped through the narrow gap between Rol's Maserati and the balustrade. Villoresi's trying to follow suit, while one of the Monegasque marshals notices a compatriot nearing...



The same scene from the other side! Can you spot Millanta (a small Italian with a bald head) on the stairs of the Bureau du Tabac?



If it's for Chiron, the marshals can work wonders and find a gap between the Gordini and the ERA! Villoresi's stuck!



Ascari accelerates away from the wreckage in a broadside, while poor Gigi has to climb out to get going again. Harry Schell (?) and Nino Farina walk away discontentedly.



Étancelin and Bira file through the gap, while the Ferrari receives a push-start. Fagioli tries in vain to reach the pits. The rest, they say, is history...

[oldtimer]

What a series of shots! Thanks Michael.

Imagine Murray Walker trying to commentate on that lot.

[Bernd]

I think Murray would go into hyperspace trying to sort that lot out oldtimer!

Well to me it looks like Michael has proven his point about the Monaco incident, there is no way that Fangio could not have seen all that commotion from the moment he left the tunnel and on his way through the chicane etc.

[Michael Ferner]

We will, of course never know whether Fangio gfted the win to Moss at aintree. Fangio was far to diplomatic (or possibly political) to say. It is, however, interesting to compare their laps times over the last few laps of the race.

Lap 80 Moss 2'4.0 Fangio 2'3.2 Gap 2.6
Lap 81 Moss 2'3.2 Fangio 2'4.2 Gap 3.6
Lap 82 Moss 2'3.8 Fangio 2'2.8 Gap 2.6
Lap 83 Moss 2'4.6 Fangio 2'5.0 Gap 3.0
Lap 84 Moss 2'5.0 Fangio 2'4.6 Gap 2.6
Lap 85 Moss 2'5.2 Fangio 2'4.0 Gap 1.4
Lap 86 Moss 2'3.8 Fangio 2'4.6 Gap 2.2
Lap 87 Moss 2'4.2 Fangio 2'3.0 Gap 1.0
Lap 88 Moss 2'0.4 Fangio 2'2.8 Gap 3.4
Lap 89 Moss 2'5.0 Fangio 2'2.2 Gap 0.6
Lap 90 Moss 2'4.6 Fangio 2'4.2 Gap 0.2


My interpretation of this is that Moss was taking things relatively slowly from lap 80 to 87. Neubauer had given a PI (piano, or slow) signal at some time, according to reports. During this time Fangio was closing. Moss' 88th lap was the fastest of the race, 3-4 seconds faster than he had been lapping, and incidentally equal to his pole position time. After that Moss returned to his regular pace. Fangio's 89th lap was his fastest of the race but still almost 2 secs slower than Moss'.

Oh, hang on there, do you mean to say that "slow" does not mean "hold position"???

[Eric Dunsdon]

I was lucky enough to see Fangio win the 1956 British Grand Prix, during the frenetic early laps he spun at Becketts Corner (the old Becketts) and I clearly remember him calmly looking over his shoulder at the neared the earth safety barrier. After sorting it out he accelerated away sending clumps of earth flying as he ripped through the gears. I have never forgotten it.