37 replies to this topic

[Bell]

Read the following from Autosport.com written by Nigel Roebuck.

I have to say that, following the death of Gilles, at Zolder in 1982, it was some little time before I could bring myself to speak to Didier Pironi, and when I did, I was not convinced, let's say, by the sincerity of his responses.

He maintained that if he had done anything wrong at Imola, it was in complete innocence – he knew nothing about any Ferrari team orders, and believed he and Villeneuve were honestly racing, etc, etc. Given the bare facts, lap times, and so on, Pironi's version of events simply did not stand up.

He went to great lengths to stress it had all been a big misunderstanding, that he had revered Gilles, and so on, but those closely involved at the time – notably the late Harvey Postlethwaite – didn't see it that way, and neither did I. Gilles and I were pretty close friends, and a couple of days after Imola spoke on the phone for more than an hour. The conversation chilled me, and although I recorded it – and still have the tape – I have never played it back since transcribing it that same day, to use in the following week's Fifth Column.

Looking back on it all, nearly 20 years on, it seems that Pironi was a Grand Prix driver coming to real greatness, his only problem being that he was team mate to the best there was. If I follow F1 till I'm 100, I will always believe that Gilles was the fastest driver there has ever been. All things being equal, Pironi was never going to get the better of him, and I believe that therefore he turned to other means.

One of the great figures in the sport said to me only recently: "When Pironi stole that race from Villeneuve on the last lap, there was much more involved than a simple victory – and he knew it. He knew Gilles's personality, and the effect this would have on him. I'll always believe what happened at Imola played a huge part in what led up to Gilles's accident at Zolder."

My feelings precisely. Perhaps he did feel some remorse ultimately – he named his twin sons Didier and Gilles – but it didn't change the way I, and others, felt. To me, Didier Pironi, beneath the placid exterior, was an ice man.

Does anyone, like me, find these comments by Nigel Roebuck a little harsh and dare I say it distateful? To be honest I don't see how the poor guy can be held responsible in anyway for Villeneuve's death. It seems to me that Roebuck is letting his rather over the top reverence to the 'great' Gilles Villenueve get in the way of objectivity. Mind you Roebuck never has been the most objective of writers!

[BuzzingHornet]

Maybe but you would have to say that it must have had a big effect in Villeneuve's stae of mind. Roebuck was also privy to what Gilles was thinking so its pretty much first hand evidence. I'm sure NR's view of Pironi was coloured but from what people say about Villeneuve he was not the type to play politics and bad mouth people if they hadn't done anything.

Lots of journalists have voiced the same opinion on Pironi/Villeneuve, there must be a germ of truth somewhere in there. Interesting article anyway, I really like reading Nigel Roebuck's stuff, always interesting even when I don't agree.

[Bell]

It may have affected Villeneuve's state of mind but that is hardly Peroni's fault, it was Gilles who lost his head which you can never afford to do in F1!

Out of curiousity, I wonder if say Barrichello had disobeyed team orders at Montreal last year there would have been a similar outcry of sympathy for Schumacher. Me thinks not!

[BuzzingHornet]

There was hardly an outcry of sympathy at the time cos Gilles was dead not long after. And when that happens people start to look for causes.

Barrichello would not dare disobey orders, he'd never drive in F1 again.

[Dudley]

Bell - There might be from a "good friend of MS" just like Nigel is a "good friend of GV".

[Ray Bell]

Precisely, Bell... Pironi may have brought out the characteristic in Villeneuve that led to his accident, but the crash was all Gilles' own work... it was he who turned the tiller, didn't get off the power, chose the wrong side or simply got caught out by the slower car.
A more circumspect approach would have seen him survive the day... but maybe not on the pole position he was desperately seeking.

Remember, too, that the limitation on qualifying tyres was a contributory factor in the whole chain of events.

[Bell]

Thats an interseting point Buzzing, was the outcry over Imola only something which happened after Villeneuve died? I had always believed that there had been an outcry immeaditley afterwards, and that Peroni was portrayed as the lowest of the low....

[BuzzingHornet]

RedFever probably knows the answer to this one.

[jonpollak]

Well 'Bell'
In one sentence you say << I'll always believe what happened at Imola played a huge part in what led up to Gilles's accident at Zolder." My feelings precisely.>>

Then you say...

<>

So which is it then???

PS. I think Roebuck has a most even perspective of F1....
but then I would wouldn't I?

Jp

[John B]

Interesting post. Pironi's year was perhaps the most unbelieveable experienced by a Grand Prix driver - starting with a huge preseason test crash, being at the forefront of the drivers strike at SOuth Africa, Imola/Zolder, losing Monaco half a lap from victory a week later, Paletti's fatal crash with his stalled Ferrari, then taking the points lead until Hockenheim.

During those years, there were several other instances of team orders being ignored - Reutemann/Jones, Prost/Arnoux, and Tambay/Arnoux. I've also read that Pironi had just been married and was motivated to impress his wife. Ferrari's reaction, or lack of, to the incident that I'm aware of, seems pretty significant too.

How premeditated was it? Well, if it was planned it couldn't have been until later in the race, when the Renaults dropped out. Ferrari put out slow signs as fuel was critical, especially at this home race and Alboreto's Tryell was a minute back in 3rd.

I'd be interested in seeing that 5th Column piece mentioned in the text.

As far as Roebuck goes, I don't have a problem with his piece. I was a Pironi fan back in 1980-82, but find the insight and opinion interesting.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Wasnt Gilles on an inlap to the pits? Thats what always made it so stupid to me

[BuzzingHornet]

No the way I heard it was the it was the one-shot qualfying tyres forced him to stay on-it when he should have lifted...

[Bell]

Originally posted by jonpollak
Well 'Bell'
In one sentence you say << I'll always believe what happened at Imola played a huge part in what led up to Gilles's accident at Zolder." My feelings precisely.>>

Then you say...

<>

So which is it then???

PS. I think Roebuck has a most even perspective of F1....
but then I would wouldn't I?

Jp

THE FIRST QUOTE IS FROM ROEBUCK NOT ME!!!!!

[John B]

The previous day, GV had come across Mass' March in the same spot and wasted his qualifying tires by slamming on the breaks. With qualifying ending he had one shot, sadly Mass made a well-intentioned but fatal decision to move over and give GV the best line.

[Ross Stonefeld]

With less than fifteen minutes to go Gilles was still out on the circuit using his last set of qualifying tyres. He had already established the fastest time but continued to circulate on the used tyres, trying to improve. As Gilles came by the start/finish line Mauro Forghieri showed him the "IN" signal on the pit board.

"I called him into the pits because his tyres were finished. He had already done three fast laps on them before and was close to the best time of Pironi and there was nothing more he could do. Gilles was coming in to the pits on the lap on which he had his crash. But even when the car was coming to the pits it was traveling at over 200 kmh. That was Gilles."


******

dumb dumb dumb

[BuzzingHornet]

I wonder how JV can get into a racing car... how can you act like your dad when he did something daft like that? How do you explain that to yourself..?

[JPMCrew]

Let's not forget that Nigel Roebuck was a close friend of Villenueve's. The comments do seem harsh, but one must view them from the point of view of some body who was personally affected by the situation.

Pironi's actions were very deceiptful and Gilles was right to be outraged, but that hardly means he was responsible for the accident in anyway.

[RedFever]

As you know, I am the biggest Gilles fan, so I will try to be very balanced in judging something I lived through in first person (I was in Imola that day).

Nigel is both right and wrong in his statements. Don't forget he is a journalist, so he needs to seel papers, and he was Gilles' friend.

However, he shows that other than realizing how talented and fast Gilles was, he understood very little of Gilles as a driver.

Didier, who many know little about now, was a great driver. He had emerged with Tyrrell and Ligier and was considered a hot shot, very fast and future WDC potential. He was finally given the big chance, race for Ferrari just as the team was going to get into the turbo era and the future looked brighter. 1981 was supposed to be a transition year both for him and the team.

As it turns out, the 126C had lots of power but was arguably one of the worst handling cars I have ever seen on an F1 track. Didier never came to terms with it, struggled the entire season and achieved a 4th position as his best. Harvey P. often stated the car was pure aweful, so Didier would have not been in any sort of trouble, if his teammate didn't achieve two historic victories with it. The first turbo win in Monaco and Jerez, a real masterpiece almost impossible to repeat.

That is what troubled Didier. He knew how bad the car was, but still Gilles had managed to achieve some, if not consistent, fantastic results with it. Now one has to understand Didier's personality and where he is coming from. Didier was raised in paris, the spoiled son of a very wealthy family. He had always everything going his way and once he arrived in F1, he had no problems getting noticed and start emerging fast. Everyone was pointing at him as a future star. Now that he seemed to be so close to achieve his dream, there was that little Canadian between him and his goal. Didier started realizing that yes he was talented and fast, but no matter what he did, Gilles was always going to be better than him. Yes, he could beat Gilles on a few races, but over an entire season with the same car no.

For an F1 driver, and particularly for someone who had it all easy in his life like Didier, it was ahuge blow to accept that he could only be the 2nd best driver because at least another guy had proven him to be superior. Didier, being an F1 driver and a racer, didn't give up. He sit there and waited for his opportunity, he knew that with a lot of luck and some opportunism, he could maybe stay at Gilles level and that would have guaranteed him a future bright spot.

1982 was the perfect time. The car was still a little roguh, but improving fast, it was obvious it was going to be a winner. Gilles had a mechanical problem and made one mistake. Didier was holding up well. Then Imola came. And Didier, who had the previous year stipulated on a handshake a non-aggression pact with Gilles (who is leading, keeps the lead), once he saw Rene drop out and only Gilles between his dream of making a statement that he could be as good as Gilles and actually beat him in front of the home crowd......well, he ignored their agreement and went for the kill.

Didier was on a mission and nothing could get between him and the victory that day. It became apparent after Gilles had passed him again to take the lead back. When Gilles was in front, the lap times were slow, nobody could challenge them, Gilles was following the "slow" and "keep 1-2" signs from the pits. But when Didier would pass him and take the lead, the lap times would drop one or even two seconds. Didier was pushing hard, he wanted to get his teammate off his back.

Clearly that didn't happen. As Didier would accelerate away, Gilles would push as well and get back into his gearbox and again, pass him at the Tosa. The second time Gilles passed Didier, it became apparent to me that Gilles was still thinking they were just swapping positions, a ferrari show in Imola. But not Didier, he moved closer to Gilles in an attempt to hold position, and during the breaking the two even touched wheels.

That was a sign for Gilles too. After Didier had passed him again, they almost crashed into another, Didier just got in Gilles side and for Gilles to close and avoid the pass would have meant automatic crash and both out. Gilles didn't close. He had one more chance left to pass Didier and he was in striking distance DP's gearbox). Everyone was holding his breath, as the Tosa was coming again (there was no chicane before back then, they'd approach the Tosa at 280KM before tha hard breaking) and it was obvious that Didier would have done everything in his power to hold Gilles behind. Everything. Gilles understood that and he saw what was going to be the most likely outcome: 2 Ferrari leading the race 1 lap from the end would turn into 2 Ferrari in the gravel at the Tosa. For Gilles was a victory on the line (the betrayal still had to sink) but for Didier it was his entire opinion of himself as driver, his entire career, showing the world yes, I can beat this guy, I can do it.

Gilles never even attempted that last pass, even if he was as close as you can get to the leader. He allowed Didier to win and Ferrari got the 1-2 it deserved. He sacrificed his win because he knew Didier would have been dangerous to pass, he would have not played it fair.

That was Didier's fault. He had seen his world and dreams crumble because of Villeneuve. The comparisons between the two in 1981 had hurt his ego. He was on a mission that day to prove his worth and nothing, not even friendship and trust, could come in the way. I never thought Didier was a bad guy, I don't justify his actions that day, i would have never done it, but I understand the human struggle that he was facing and the why he did what he did.

The story was over for me as far as I was concerend. Ferrari the day after said publicly that he thought Gilles had won that race and the pit signs confirmed that, but Didier thought it differently. Gilles calmed down and actually the following week signed a new 2 year contract. But he kept his position, he didn't trust Didier anymore and would never talk to him again. He promised he would never do on the track anything to damage Ferrari (like punting him, not in Gilles style), but as far as he was concerned, Didier simply didn't exist anymore. Story is over.

For Nigel to now accuse Didier of being responsible of Gilles death......it is a big stretch, it is an infamy aginst Didier because DP was not out there trying to dmage Gilles, he was out there trying to slavage his own self-esteem. It also shows Nigel didn't undertsand Gilles as a racer at all.

Gilles ALWAYS, always gave 110% of himself, regardless of the situation of his car. He did it when he had a competitive T4, he did it when he had the two most undriveable cars of the 80s, the T5 and the 126C, the first only good for mid-pack positions at best. That was Gilles.

And that was Gilles that day in Zolder. Regardless of what happened in Imola, Gilles was still the ultimate racer in F1. To know Gilles back then, it means one thing only. When Gilles, a few minutes left to qualifying was ready to go out one last time, he knew one thing and one thing only: There were 6-8 drivers ahead of him and he was not in pole. That Didier was one of them was simply incidental, because Gilles wanted to be the fastest and ahead of them all, Didier or not Didier. If Didier would have been 15th at that point, nothing would have changed. Gilles would have still gone out with the same steel-cold eye expression (only when he would put his helmet on) and agonistic furor. He would still left white clouds behind him as his tires screetched on the pit lane and he would have still push himself to the limit once again. And yes, he would have still arrived at 280km where Mass was and, yes, the two would have still missunderstood each other, causing Gilles to die. Because that was the way Gilles was, he was a racer and that meant he was always going to give it all to be the fastest out there. Didier had absolutely nothing to do with Gilles' death. Anyone who states that is adding infamy to Didier without reason and shows a very limited understanding of Gilles as a racer and as a man.

Ferrari said a few days later that Gilles had lived the way he wanted to live. He also down-played Didier's role in Gilles death. He said it was his believe that if Gilles had known his destiny and the story of his life, because he had always done what he really loved to do and the way he wanted to do it, if he knew all this, still he believed that day in Zolder Gilles would have once again lowered his visor and left the pits for the last time with the same determination and agonistic furor, because that was the way Gilles was. I agree completly and I feel sorry for Nigel who seems to have completly missunderstood the driver he loved so much and feels compelled to accuse Didier to make sense of Gilles death.


PS. Although Gilles had almost no chance to improve his lap time, he had decided to go for one more "hot" lap, hoping the tyres would hold some more. So, he was nothing coming in, he was still giving it a try. Gilles was crazy but not stupid. If he was on an in lap, he would have slowed once he saw Mass. All the speeds recorded in the previous half of the lap show that Gilles was going flat out in a last desperate attempt to imrove his grid position

[RedFever]

double post, sorry

[Manson]

You won't find too many people who sympathyse with Pironi or feel too sad about what happened to him (in F1, not the boat incident). It's unfair but the truth.

[BuzzingHornet]

You should email that the Nigel Roebuck, RedFever... very interesting

[f1nut]

The death of Gille Villeneuve was caused by an incredibly tragic combination of events. To solely blame Pironi I think is unfair. He was under tremendous pressure to prove himself against the man who was acknowledged to be the fastest driver of his day. Not an easy task. However I remember watching the Imola race dumbfounded at what Pironi was doing. For him to claim that he had no knowledge of any team orders to me seems ridiculous. I think that Gilles felt an incredible sense of betrayal by Pironi's action and had he not been killed at Zolder would probably never have forgiven Pironi. We have all seen the types of head games that some drivers try to play with each other in modern F1 to try and gain an edge and I think that this is the type of attitude Pironi had. He was a talented driver who was desperate to prove his abilities to himself as well as to the Ferrari team and fans, whose loyalty lay with their hero Gilles. Villeneuve also wanted to prove that he was still the King of the hill. The result was a tragic loss to the sport of F1.
Nigel Roebuck's reporting of this event may seem harsh to some but I think that anyone around at the time could not doubt but share a similar view even without Roebuck's unique perspective.

[Ross Stonefeld]

The Ferrari dude said he was given the call into the pits. Since we dont know what was going through Gilles mind at the time we have to assume he was on his way in

[FredF1]

I was watching the 1982 season review the other night - It brought a lump to my throat watching Pironi desperately trying to free Paletti from his car on the starting grid in Canada - Especially knowing what fate had in store for Didier himself....

[RedFever]

F1 nut -

Agree with Nigel that Didier betrayd Gilles: YES!!!

Agree with Nigel that Didier is resposnible for Gilles'd death: NEVER


Ross -

you are commenting on something you know nothing about. Back then, the tyres were extremely soft and mostly allowed one falt out lap. However, it was not unusual, particularly on some track, for drivers to go for two fast laps, or in some cases, turn around the tires on the wheels and go out again.

Ferrari team expected Gilles in, because he had one one warmup lap and one fast lap. 95% of the titme, the driver would come back in at that point. However, clearly Gilles had decided to go for one more fast, flat out lap in a desperate last attempt to improve. You can't assume anything just because the Ferrari pit expected him in. You have to look at his time and speed, so you know what he was ACTUALLY doing, not what a dude expected. Gilles partial time and speed before impact on his final lap was less than 0.01 faster than the previous one. That is proof without doubt that Gilles, although he was not going to improve his grid position, was flat out on a second OUT lap. No mistery, no assumption, just a fact. He had autonomosuly decided, feeling his car, that the tires were stil decent enough to give it another try. Simple as that.

[Ross Stonefeld]

RedFever you need to read. The guy said Gilles was shown the IN command on his pit board. Did you get high enough in racing to ever warrant a pit board? It also said Gilles had done three fast laps on those tires.

I dont know what Im talking about? Im posting a quote from the guy who was THERE

[RedFever]

Ross -

I have no idea what you are reading and where is it from.

I don't need to read, Ross, I watched it all happen with my own eyes (live!!!!) while you were probably still suckling your mum's breasts.

Gilles went out.
Gilles completed 1 warmup lap.
Gilles completed a flat out lap.
As he crossed the finish line, was shown the IN sign.
Gilles ignored sign (if you made it up enough in racing, you know the sign is just that. The driver makes the final decision).
Gilles performed, as accurately measured by Tag Hauer, another flat out lap. Lap was not completed due to crash with Mass.

End of story.


Besides, use two grams of your grey matter: why would Gilles, if he was coming in, be driving at 280kmh and go to pass Mass on the outside bordering the grass, when he wasn't completing the lap????????? he was traveling over 100Kmh faster than Mass. Use your brain when judging something instead of buying into anything "some dude" said somewhere.

[Peeko]

To be 0.01 off of your best time on your 4th run on qualifying tires would have to be one absolutley hell of an achievment. 3 flying laps seems odd, if the time on his last lap is true.

Regardless, it wasn't an 'In' lap.

[RedFever]

Peeko, Ross is reporting incorrect info. Gilles had only completed a full in lap and a full fast lap. When he crashed, he was on his second full speed lap.

It was already a stretch because in those days you really only had one full speed lap with those tires. Already on your second full speed lap, your chances of improving were much smaller. After Gilles and Didier's accidents, they finally realized these qualifying system was putting drivers under too much pressure to perform AT ALL COSTS during a lap, often taking absurd risks because it was their only chance

[Peeko]

Agree, Red. Being only .01 off of your best time on the 4th run is what makes the '3 flying laps' comment seem impossible. But then again, this is Gilles...

[Ross Stonefeld]

Why would he do that? Because Gilles' greatest strength was his ultimate undoing?

Sorry but Ill take a team members recollection over yours any day

[mtl'78]

Well, the account RedFever has given is 100% accurate as far as I know. There are a few other points about it I'd like to add:

The incident at Imola DID affect Gilles in the weeks leading up to Zolder. At first, he took Ferrari's attempt to blanket the incident as a betrayal, to the point of discussing leaving Ferrari for Maclaren after the 1982 season. Once he had calmed down a little, and reportedly faced with the prospect of meeting with Enzo to tell him he was through with Ferrari, it all proved too much. He ended up signing new contract at a meeting in which he was supposed to quit! He loved Ferrari, and Enzo in particular too much. It would have been like leaving his family.

Also, on that topic, the incident with Pironi did have some positive affects for Gilles as well. Gilles' personnal life was in turmoil. His wife Joann wantd to leave him, and Gilles had a secret misstress back in Canada. They had married at 18, and 10 years later Joann was fed up with Gilles' old fashioned beliefs. Gilles was by all accounts a dificult husband and father. He was very jealous of his wife and didn't allow her to socialize without him, despite the fact that he was away most of the time. He once became Furious at his best friend Jody Scheckter when Joann had gotten a little tipsy at a dinner there. His relationship with Jacques was strained as he was very hard on his 5 year-old son. He demanded that he be the best at what he did, and had plans to turn him into a world-beating driver for his own team one day, perhaps they would even race together one day. Jacques was reportedly very nervous around his father, spilling milk, acting strange, and complaining of headaches. All this led up to 1982, and Joann had demanded a seperation, but Gilles refused, afraid of what the Italian press would say, among other things. Then came Imola, and Joann saw her husband wounded, and felt sorry for him. Further than that, Gilles immediatly remembered that after meeting Pironi for the first time, Joann had warned her husband not to trust this man, that he had a very suspicious way about him. Gilles had dismissed her offhand, partly from his own vast self-confidence. But Imola brought all that back, and by all accounts, Villeneuve's last few days at home werethe happiest in years. This goes against the theory that Gilles was in a murderous rage that weekend in Zolder. That his anger pushed his fearlessness to far over the edge and he payed the ultimate price for it.

I think RedFever's assessment is far more credible. Gilles was pushing to go faster. Yes, he had been told to come into the pits for 2 laps, but believe me, he would have flown past the pit entry on his fatal lap. He was on another flyer.

You are of course free to think that Gilles was stupid for trying to do it on finished tyres, but this is the very attitude that made Gilles great. Without it he would have been just another driver. An accident like that one today results in both drivers making it back to the pits and one having to be held back from punching the other's lights out. The cars he drove were death traps. That, and the fact that the tyres they used were unsafe. They forced a driver to force his hot lap through no matter what. Gilles himself had prophetically mused that this would cause a big accident one day. All of the drivers were in unison on that. But the FIA/FISA were too busy with their war on FOCA to do anything about it and it sadly took the life of that time's greatest driver for them to finally amend the rules and mandate safer qualifying tyres.

[RedFever]

Ross, free to stubbornly stay in ignorance about something you didn't witness. Not only I saw it with my eyes, not only many here did see it with their eyes, but any article of the time when it happened said the same exact thing. gilles was on his thir lap, second fast one, when he died. You are off course free to keep ignoring reality as much as it pleases you and look foolish instead of just admitting there is a chance for once that you are wrong.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Since I was not there I had to rely on the recollection of a Ferrari crew member. Ironic isnt it?

At the moment I am not lactating so get off my tit you silly tifauxsi

[jonpollak]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bell

B][/QUOTE]

THE FIRST QUOTE IS FROM ROEBUCK NOT ME!!!!! [/B][/QUOTE]

Sorry,
It was hard to deliniate which was the quote and which was your addition.....

<>


Jp

[Bell]

A general point here, but isn't true that as soon as a driver dies eg. GV or Senna, there are instantly canonised. I remember when Senna was alive, and the press were as hostile to him as there are now to Schumacher. Say Schumacher had been killed in 1999 at Silverstone? What would people be saying about him now? I think that he would be lauded as possibly the greatest driver of all time. Just as Villeneuve and Senna are now. Senna and Schumacher at least have the stats and WDC's to back that up but GV has not. He was a hugely talented driver who died tragically. The fact remains though that his death was no-ones fault but his own, and I feel that it is time that Didier Peroni, who lets not forget, alos died tragically, should be allowed to rest in peace and not but be indited as the man responsible for GV's death.

[Witt]

I think Roebuck is being too harsh on Pironi. Sure, he might have the account of the San Marino GP weekend right, but to judge a dead man's character on one weekend, and lable the guy "ice man", is not fair.

Didier Pironi is the only guy on the 1982 grid who went to help Ricardo Paletti out of his wrecked car, which is a brave thing to do when it's on fire.

[FredF1]

Bell and Witt,
Agreed.
Redfever or Mtl'78 could probably answer this one...
Wasn't Pironi one of the first on the scene after GV's crash? I think it's mentioned in Prof. Sid Watkins book - I think he says something about Pironi having to be physically restrained from going over to try and help Gilles?
It's not as F1 hadn't been here before, what with the witch-hunt after Peterson's fatal crash at Monza in 1978.
Then, Hunt and Lauda sought his Patrese's banning from F1 for his 'dangerous' driving.
F1 is a tight community - Like any other close-knit group, it has its pecking order and 'feeding-frenzy'.
It doesn't take much for a 'lynch-mob' mentality to occur.