25 replies to this topic

[blueprint2002]

As I recall, during the course of their GP careers, both Dan Gurney and (even more so) Chris Amon, despite their obvious talent, were generally regarded as “unlucky”, at least by the specialist media, on whose words most fans had to rely. Time and again, they would qualify on pole and/or go out into the lead/ threaten the leaders, only to fall back/ retire due to one breakdown or another/ tyre trouble/ damage due to contact with another car or other hard object, etc. The result, as far as their career statistics are concerned, are known to all on this forum.

I’ve sometimes wondered, though, if something besides luck also played a part, and one such cause might be a lack of what is vaguely known as “mechanical sympathy”. Could it be that these two, and others similarly affected, simply weren’t able to detect and/or interpret the tiny early symptoms that the likes of Clark and Stewart could, or even if detected, weren’t able to compensate so as to nurse the car to the finish? Or was it something else again?

The funny thing is, both drivers named above won the Le Mans 24 hours, though this might have been aided by the sheer ruggedness of the Ford GT Mk2/ Mk4 respectively. And DG completed the Indy 500 several times, including two second-place finishes, another test of durability. Maybe it really was bad luck, after all, that denied him so many more wins.

[E1pix]

Considering the sheer brilliance I witnessed at Montreal in '78, I'd throw Jarier in as one.

I've never seen anyone that fast never win a single race, in any kind of racing.

[john winfield]

Jarier, yes, a fantastic drive in the Lotus. A few earlier in the Shadow too. No F1 wins but several in F2, aboard the works March in 1973.

[E1pix]

Yes, my last sentence was indeed a bit clumsy... meant "I'd never seen a better driver in any kind of racing that hadn't won," not that Jean-Pierre never won in anything.

Sorry about that. Even my re-write doesn't sound great. ;-)

[arttidesco]

Chris never thought of himself as unlucky he considered it fortunate to have as long a career as he did when so many of his contemporaries were killed.

 

JP-J also won a fair number of Sports Car races with Matra so not sure mechanical sympathy was the issue with him either.

 

Some people appear to be better at creating thier own luck than others however sympathetic or not they are ;-)

[john aston]

In career choice bad luck - Ickx (left Ferrari at wrong time and should have stuck with Lotus  ), Alesi (Ferrari heart trumped Williams head (as it were )) and just about  every career choice made by Alonso after glory years with Renault - until he saw sense and realised there was more to life than F1 . 

[Sterzo]

As I recall, during the course of their GP careers, both Dan Gurney and (even more so) Chris Amon, despite their obvious talent, were generally regarded as “unlucky”, at least by the specialist media, on whose words most fans had to rely. Time and again, they would qualify on pole and/or go out into the lead/ threaten the leaders...

Unreliability in those days was rife. Assuming random distribution of bad luck, then some people would suffer more than others.

 

I suspect Amon had some advocates in the motoring press who just might have overstated his case. Eoin Young and perhaps Nigel Roebuck come to mind. Yes, Amon was hugely talented, but no-one was going to throw out Jim Clark, Graham Hill, John Surtees, Jackie Stewart, or indeed Dan Gurney to give him their drive.

 

Gurney is a different matter. Was he massively unlucky? His physical size gave him a slight disadvantage, and he did once wreck a Brabham gearchange with his strength, but I don't recall a disproportionate number of retirements or lost wins.

 

Both drivers started new F1 teams; usually a recipe for plenty of retirements.

Edited by Sterzo, 22 December 2019 - 09:57.

[john winfield]

In career choice bad luck - Ickx (left Ferrari at wrong time and should have stuck with Lotus  ),. 

 

I was, and am, a huge fan of Jacky Ickx, and could probably list a string of Grand Prix 1968-1972 that he led before mechanical problems cost him more wins to boost his tally of eight. His talent certainly deserved more. (Plus some Ferrari sports car near-misses in 1970 and 1971!).  But I'm not entirely sure that Jacky would, over the winter of 1973/74, have been able to help Forghieri turn the 312 B3 into the phenomenally quick car that we saw in 1974. I think Niki Lauda's ambition and commitment is what made that possible. I'm sure Jacky might have won races in the 1974 car, and the later 312T, but would these Ferraris have been as good if he had stayed?

Edited by john winfield, 22 December 2019 - 12:09.

[Henk Vasmel]

My theory here is that drivers also have a level of accuracy. The best ones there can take a certain corner at its ultimate speed, minus a small margin, to make sure that they can make it every lap. Less accurate drivers have to take a bit more of a margin. Now some drivers underestimate the margin that they have to take so they try a bit faster than is good for them. This makes them look very fast. Usually it is OK, but every once in a while they get caught out. That is why they then get a reputation of crashers. My pet example here is Andrea de Cesaris, but there are many more.

 

I can also imagine that this works with less visible things, we call mechanical sympathy. The exact moment you hit the brakes, change gear etc.

 

Comparisons with longer distance racing like Le Mans but also Indianapolis are a bit difficult because of the long periods not racing at the absolute maximum. Current day Grand Prix also fall in that category. It is very common nowadays to see fastest laps several seconds slower than pole positions. (Side question: which GP's had  a fastest lap faster than pole position, without obvious weather influence)

 

This level of accuracy is not a real given for a certain driver. It can be developed and usually experience will improve it.

[ensign14]

Nicola Larini.  After years shlepping in back of the grid cars, with a number of just-outside-the-points finishes, and having come agonizingly close to a podium at Canada 1989, and maybe even winning it, in an Osella, he finally makes the points for the first time, driving a Ferrari in Italy.  And finishes 2nd to boot.

 

And he cannot enjoy it.  Because it is 1994 and the circuit is Imola.

 

Another one is Tony Trimmer.  He never gets the imprimatur of starting a World Championship Grand Prix, despite starting half-a-dozen World Championship-level Formula 1 races, and even nabbing a podium in one.  Because every time it's an official race he gets stuck with rubbish.  Either old cars, wrong tyres, or dangerous cars.  Even part of the Lotus set-up yet, unlike Crawford, Henton, Walker, and Evans, and one or two other more successful extra drivers, never got a World Championship entry.   In an era of so many random drivers in so many random cars, it is astounding that the pachinko machine didn't pay out once for him.

[Glengavel]

Jean Behra has twelve or so non-championship victories and no WC wins - is this the record?

[ensign14]

Dave Charlton.

[cpbell]

Regarding Ickx, isn't it possible that, without his practice crash in Canada, he might have won the WDC in 1968?  Given that he also could have won in 1970 (though Rindt winning posthumously was the best outcome, IMO), might we, in that event, have rated him as being one of the great all-rounders rather than a prototype specialist?

[john winfield]

Regarding Ickx, isn't it possible that, without his practice crash in Canada, he might have won the WDC in 1968?  Given that he also could have won in 1970 (though Rindt winning posthumously was the best outcome, IMO), might we, in that event, have rated him as being one of the great all-rounders rather than a prototype specialist?

 

I don't know about you but I always did rate him as a great all-rounder! In fact, for me, he was a Grand Prix hero who also drove sports cars very quickly.

 

Autocourse rated him among the top three Grand Prix drivers four years running, 1969-1972. He was a Grand Prix winner unlucky never to win a World Championship.

[cpbell]

I don't know about you but I always did rate him as a great all-rounder! In fact, for me, he was a Grand Prix hero who also drove sports cars very quickly.

 

Autocourse rated him among the top three Grand Prix drivers four years running, 1969-1972. He was a Grand Prix winner unlucky never to win a World Championship.

Absolutely, but he might be rated as such by more people had he won the WDC.  These days, F1 dominates all other forms of motorsport in many countries.  Sports car success is lesser-rated or ignored more than it was in his day.

[Sterzo]

It was alleged somewhere, by someone in print (DSJ?), that Ickx was most enthusiastic in F1 on the classic circuits like Spa and the Ring, but didn't always give his all elsewhere. Whether that's sustained by evidence is another matter.

[john winfield]

It was alleged somewhere, by someone in print (DSJ?), that Ickx was most enthusiastic in F1 on the classic circuits like Spa and the Ring, but didn't always give his all elsewhere. Whether that's sustained by evidence is another matter.

 

That's my impression, without any scientific research.....

 

I was thinking about Ickx at Brands Hatch the other day....Brands, almost a classic circuit?!  He scored that steady 3rd place at the 1968 GP (Ferrari), and the impressive wet-weather win at the 1974 Race of Champions (Lotus), but his performances 1970-72 were stunning. Front row at the 1970 BOAC 1000km, led until minor problems dropped him down the field. Front row at the 1970 GP, led impressively until the Ferrari broke after just six laps. Pole at the 1971 BOAC 1000km, led the Porsche 917s until his 312P encountered the spinning Dulon, after which he and Regga tigered back to second. Front row at the 1972 BOAC 1000km, fast controlled drive to victory with Andretti. Pole at the 1972 GP, led for 48 laps, Ferrari broke again.

 

I think DSJ described Ickx one year as 'thoroughly in tune with Brands Hatch'. He certainly was. 

[cpbell]

It was alleged somewhere, by someone in print (DSJ?), that Ickx was most enthusiastic in F1 on the classic circuits like Spa and the Ring, but didn't always give his all elsewhere. Whether that's sustained by evidence is another matter.

Perhaps that explains him coming a distant second to Beltoise in Monaco in '72, given that the conditions ought to have suited him.

[john aston]

Something weird happened to Ickx - he was amazing on his debut in an F2 car at German GP 67 - 3rd on the  grid at the 'Ring . He never looked less than brilliant in the next few years , He impressed me and everyone else who was there at Brands RoC 74, had the odd decent race later  in 74 but then sank without trace to also ran status - or so it felt. But up to and including 72 , he was one of the very best . Watching him  at Brands in the 312B in practice I was bloody mesmerised - and his screaming 312B2 helped

[proviz]

In the late 70's I once asked Nigel Roebuck his opinion of Ickx's decline in F1. Nigel pointed out that Jacky grew up in an era when a driver had to live with very real dangers. As circuits became safer he then tended to leave just a bit more margin than even slightly younger hot shoes, who perhaps used more of the road, cut apexes and so on. Those changes to circuits favoured drivers who had picked up such habits in karting.

[Tim Murray]

I’ve always felt that Ickx, more than most, significantly altered his approach to racing after getting married. He and Catherine Blaton tied the knot in August 1970, and my understanding is that she (and her family) were not keen on him racing. I believe that from then on he always allowed a bit more margin than previously, so he was still quick, but not as blindingly quick as he had been.

[john winfield]

Good point Tim. Plus the fact that Larissa (his first child?) Was born in early 1973.

[Claudio Navonne]

After reading the opinions expressed about Ickxs, which I fully share, I would like to add Carlos Reutemann, in my humble opinion. But I believe that these are not cases of bad luck, but cases of bad choice of the team in which to run, or loss of motivation for some reason. I think that's what separates the great from the TRULY great. For example, Reutemann could never win two races in a row, or he would excel in the first few races of the season, fall into a slump towards the middle of the season and shine again at the end (the rest are already relaxed?)

 

[john aston]

I loved the Lauda answer to the question whether Reutemann was  team mate or rival -

 

'Neither' ...

[Emery0323]

Gurney is a different matter. Was he massively unlucky? His physical size gave him a slight disadvantage, and he did once wreck a Brabham gearchange with his strength, but I don't recall a disproportionate number of retirements or lost wins.

 

Both drivers started new F1 teams; usually a recipe for plenty of retirements.

I have always wondered what Dan could have accomplished if he could have stayed with Brabham in 1966-1967 instead of starting his own team.  That opinion might be heretical for DSG fans, particularly in the USA.  However, right after he left, the 3-liter formula comes into effect for F1, and Jack Brabham and Denny Hulme win the WDC in 1966- 1967 driving for Dan's former team.

[68targa]

There is no doubt that luck plays a part but I am sure that Dan Gurney, Chris Amon and Jacky Ickx would consider themselves extremely lucky to have survived during, what was, a very dangerous time. However I take the point that they were 'unlucky' in race wins (or not) and deserved more than the results show. It is interesting that Amon was always considered unlucky for never winning a GP and yet Stirling Moss, who won many GP's and other races is also quoted as being unlucky never to have won a World Championship.