This is my take, what I believe happened in the tragedy. If it includes ground already gone over - shoot me, I'm new to this forum. It does include ground NOT gone over, however.
BACKGROUND - A week before the race at Hockenheim, the opening round of the European F2 champs, the Gran Premio Barcelona, was held at Montjuich Park and Clark qualified his Lotus 48 second (by 0.1 second) to Jackie Stewart's Matra. Jacky Ickx, with unbedded brake pads, rammed Clark on the first lap, both were out, Clark was pissed and his mech, Dave Sims, put a new rear end on the car once back at the factory. Clark was planning on debuting the Goodyear-shod Ford F3L at the BOAC 500 but he was contracted to Firestone, as was Graham Hill so Jochen Rindt was teamed with Denis Hulme along with Bruce McLaren and Mike Spence. Jack Brabham couldn't be considered as he was contracted to Esso and Colin Chapman promised the sponsors in Germany that Clark would race. Missing were Stewart (winner in Spain and testing his F1 car at Jarama), Ickx (teamed with Brian Redman on the BOAC-winning Ford GT-40), Ludovico Scarfiotti (teamed with Gerhard Mitter in the second place Porsche 907), Vic Elford (teamed with Jochen Neerpasch on the third place Porsche 907), Pedro Rodriguez (teamed with david pierpont on the fifth place ferrari 275 LM) and Jo Siffert teamed with Hans Hermann on the non-finishing Porsche 907). Among those lining up at Hockenheimring for the AvD Rennen along with Clark were Hill, Chris Amon, Derek Bell, Piers Courage, Robin Widdows, Chris Irwin, Chris Lambert, Jean-Pierre Beltoise, Henri Pescarolo, Hubert Hahne, Peter Gethin, Brian Hart, Alan Rees, Kurt Ahrens and Xavier Perrot.
HOCKENHEIMRING - There were problems with the fuel metering unit drive belts, getting the gear ratios right and the Firestones weren't working well in the wet. During practice on Saturday morning his engine conked out and he had to be towed back. After dinner that evening with Hill, he traveled with Ahrens to a TV studio to do the show "Das aktuelle Sport Studio", had breakfast next morning at the Hotel Luxhof in Speyer with Hill and Bell and then drove with them to the circuit.
ACCOUNTS - Bell - "I do remember his mechanics driving the Lotus up and down the paddock all morning, trying to cure that misfire (that Clark had told him about at breakfast)."
Randy Barnett (covering the race for "Stars And Stripes") - "When the big field...took off in a light rain...Clark was somewhere in the middle of the bunch...looking at my notes and the first 10 drivers listed on my lap chart, there is never a mention of either Clark or Hill."
A different take on Jim Clark tragedy
Started by
Ralliart
, Jun 23 2002 21:37
69 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
Ralliart
-
- 669 posts
- Joined: June 02
Member
Posted 23 June 2002 - 22:26
Part II - I must've hit a button. Sorry for the interruption. To continue, then...
Nick Georgano - "He was lying 8th on lap five."
Eric Dymock - "After four laps (he) lay eighth."
Amon (who, after qualifying 6th, lined up alongside Clark) - "We gotstarted and the Firestones were useless in the wet. Jimmy was about the same distance in front of me every lap but he was only about eighth and not making any ground."
Heinz Pruller - "An eye witness confirmed that, in the last left hand bend, Clark almost lost control of the Lotus but was able to correct instantly."
After negotiating the next two right handers, Clark entered the long, right hander at a debatable speed.
Pruller - "Considerably faster than (130 mph)."
Bell - "We could go round that long right hand curve...side by side, even in the rain, at around 150 mph."
Tremayne - "At 140 mph."
Dymock - "Clark accelerated to about 160 mph."
The only witness to Clark's crash was a German course worker who described how the Scot fought for control before plunging sideways off the road into the trees.
Georgano - "The wreckage was too badly mangled to give any firm clue to the cause...many reasons have been put forward, including tire failure, suspension breackage, engine cut-out, children crossing the track and simple driver error...the most probable explanation is that the offside rear tire lost pressure and left the rim, putting the car into a broad slide."
Pruller - in Chapman's view...Clark drove over a stone, nail or similar object and the right rear tire was damaged...according to Chapman's theory, the pressure...would have dropped to eight or ten pounds. Even this pressure would keep the tire on its rim up to 120 or 130 mph...but 1600cc Formula 2 cars go considerably faster than this on the long, curving right hander."
Tremayne - "A slow puncture which then led to the tire suddenly pulling into the wheel well and destabilizing the car was the most plausible."
William Court - "He died inexplicably (generally thought to have been caused by a punctured tire deflating)."
Barnett - "Chances are that a critical mechanical failure occurred (some 'in the know' said it was a broken front suspension)..or it could have been a tire."
Tony Dodgins - "The most likely explanation is that Clark...had a puncture in the left rear tire."
Charles Fox - "Some said that Chapman's car had failed Clark.. Stung by this, Chapman invited an independent aircraft investigator (Peter Jowitt of the Royal Aircraft establishment accident investigation branch) who had been critical of his designs in the past, to examine the wreckage. The investigation exonerated Chapman...in fact, it was a flat tire that killed Clark. The tire beads were not bolted to the rim."
Dymock - "Theories concerning Clark's accident ranged from freak gusts of wind to errant pedestrians...but the most likely explanation was the explosive decompression of a tire."
CONTRADICTIONS - We've seen that no one is certain what place in the field Clark was when he crashed nor the speed at which he was traveling...that two journalists differ on which tire was deflated...that Chapman was not minding the store (he was away skiing) but was exonerated...and that, despite the accounts of a driver in the race, a reporter at the race and an eyewitness to the crash, there is no consensus of opinion as to the cause.
ANOTHER VIEW - Fred Gamble, who, as of May 1993 resided in Snowmass, Colorado, wrote to ON TRACK magazine and, in the 23 May '93 issue, his letter - headed "Time For The Truth" - was published. gamble had this to say:
"Concerning the circumstances of Jimmy Clark's death...maybe it is time the truth is told. I was privileged to be a part of that era and a friend of Jimmy's, so was just as devastated as everyone else when he was killed. His car had a rear suspension failure; sadly one of the frequent and well-known results of the brilliant but fragile Lotus cars of that era. I was Goodyear's first director of international racing at the time and, as Firestone was contracted to Lotus, after the accident and rumors of a tire failure, Firestone engineers showed me the tire off the Clark car, not deflated or failed, but obviously dragged sideways after a suspension failure. Jimmy would have had a chance of dealing with a puncture and deflation but suspension failure, no way could he have controlled the car. I can understand Firestone not wanting to 'blame' Lotus car failure because of their corporate relationship with Lotus and Colin Chapman...I think those of us in the sport at the time who knew the details of Jimmy's death have probably kept quiet out of respect for Colin Champam's brilliance as a designer, but more because the great Jim Clark was like a son to Chapman. I'm sure Chapman knew the cause of the accident but to have been publicly condemned for a fragile design failure might have been emotionally too much for Colin to bear."
POSTSCRIPT - Gamble went on to relate that he left Goodyear and was living in Wellington, New Zealand at the time of the '69 Tasman series. At Levin (the second of seven races in the series), after spinning three laps earlier while in the lead, Rindt went off at Castrol bend when the suspension failed, climbed an earthbank and flipped over. With a petrol leak, he was hopelessly trapped inside. Onlooking saloon driver Dick Sellens and others got Rindt out who, on his arrival in the pits, asked Gamble to contact Leo Mehl in England and the Goodyear hdq in Akron to get him back on the Brabham F1 team. Gamble tried but was unsuccessful.
Nick Georgano - "He was lying 8th on lap five."
Eric Dymock - "After four laps (he) lay eighth."
Amon (who, after qualifying 6th, lined up alongside Clark) - "We gotstarted and the Firestones were useless in the wet. Jimmy was about the same distance in front of me every lap but he was only about eighth and not making any ground."
Heinz Pruller - "An eye witness confirmed that, in the last left hand bend, Clark almost lost control of the Lotus but was able to correct instantly."
After negotiating the next two right handers, Clark entered the long, right hander at a debatable speed.
Pruller - "Considerably faster than (130 mph)."
Bell - "We could go round that long right hand curve...side by side, even in the rain, at around 150 mph."
Tremayne - "At 140 mph."
Dymock - "Clark accelerated to about 160 mph."
The only witness to Clark's crash was a German course worker who described how the Scot fought for control before plunging sideways off the road into the trees.
Georgano - "The wreckage was too badly mangled to give any firm clue to the cause...many reasons have been put forward, including tire failure, suspension breackage, engine cut-out, children crossing the track and simple driver error...the most probable explanation is that the offside rear tire lost pressure and left the rim, putting the car into a broad slide."
Pruller - in Chapman's view...Clark drove over a stone, nail or similar object and the right rear tire was damaged...according to Chapman's theory, the pressure...would have dropped to eight or ten pounds. Even this pressure would keep the tire on its rim up to 120 or 130 mph...but 1600cc Formula 2 cars go considerably faster than this on the long, curving right hander."
Tremayne - "A slow puncture which then led to the tire suddenly pulling into the wheel well and destabilizing the car was the most plausible."
William Court - "He died inexplicably (generally thought to have been caused by a punctured tire deflating)."
Barnett - "Chances are that a critical mechanical failure occurred (some 'in the know' said it was a broken front suspension)..or it could have been a tire."
Tony Dodgins - "The most likely explanation is that Clark...had a puncture in the left rear tire."
Charles Fox - "Some said that Chapman's car had failed Clark.. Stung by this, Chapman invited an independent aircraft investigator (Peter Jowitt of the Royal Aircraft establishment accident investigation branch) who had been critical of his designs in the past, to examine the wreckage. The investigation exonerated Chapman...in fact, it was a flat tire that killed Clark. The tire beads were not bolted to the rim."
Dymock - "Theories concerning Clark's accident ranged from freak gusts of wind to errant pedestrians...but the most likely explanation was the explosive decompression of a tire."
CONTRADICTIONS - We've seen that no one is certain what place in the field Clark was when he crashed nor the speed at which he was traveling...that two journalists differ on which tire was deflated...that Chapman was not minding the store (he was away skiing) but was exonerated...and that, despite the accounts of a driver in the race, a reporter at the race and an eyewitness to the crash, there is no consensus of opinion as to the cause.
ANOTHER VIEW - Fred Gamble, who, as of May 1993 resided in Snowmass, Colorado, wrote to ON TRACK magazine and, in the 23 May '93 issue, his letter - headed "Time For The Truth" - was published. gamble had this to say:
"Concerning the circumstances of Jimmy Clark's death...maybe it is time the truth is told. I was privileged to be a part of that era and a friend of Jimmy's, so was just as devastated as everyone else when he was killed. His car had a rear suspension failure; sadly one of the frequent and well-known results of the brilliant but fragile Lotus cars of that era. I was Goodyear's first director of international racing at the time and, as Firestone was contracted to Lotus, after the accident and rumors of a tire failure, Firestone engineers showed me the tire off the Clark car, not deflated or failed, but obviously dragged sideways after a suspension failure. Jimmy would have had a chance of dealing with a puncture and deflation but suspension failure, no way could he have controlled the car. I can understand Firestone not wanting to 'blame' Lotus car failure because of their corporate relationship with Lotus and Colin Chapman...I think those of us in the sport at the time who knew the details of Jimmy's death have probably kept quiet out of respect for Colin Champam's brilliance as a designer, but more because the great Jim Clark was like a son to Chapman. I'm sure Chapman knew the cause of the accident but to have been publicly condemned for a fragile design failure might have been emotionally too much for Colin to bear."
POSTSCRIPT - Gamble went on to relate that he left Goodyear and was living in Wellington, New Zealand at the time of the '69 Tasman series. At Levin (the second of seven races in the series), after spinning three laps earlier while in the lead, Rindt went off at Castrol bend when the suspension failed, climbed an earthbank and flipped over. With a petrol leak, he was hopelessly trapped inside. Onlooking saloon driver Dick Sellens and others got Rindt out who, on his arrival in the pits, asked Gamble to contact Leo Mehl in England and the Goodyear hdq in Akron to get him back on the Brabham F1 team. Gamble tried but was unsuccessful.
#3
jarama
-
- 1,129 posts
- Joined: September 00
Member
Posted 24 June 2002 - 09:04
Originally posted by Ralliart
Jacky Ickx, with unbedded brake pads, rammed Clark on the first lap, both were out, Clark was pissed and his mech, Dave Sims, put a new rear end on the car once back at the factory.
Ralliart,
the suspension unit damaged was the rear left, while the fatal crash was on a fast right-hander. I've ever been wondering if the car was not properly fixed, with only seven days between the two races - wich means only 2 or 3 working days.
#4
Ray Bell
-
- 82,257 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 24 June 2002 - 09:32
Two or three days is plenty... but often damage might not be visible and reveal itself later.
Not that I think this is necessarily the case, but it's a possibility.
Not that I think this is necessarily the case, but it's a possibility.
#5
lynmeredith
-
- 174 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 24 June 2002 - 10:00
What's the 'different take' then? You've given us plenty of possibilities/contradictions. I don't see your summary. What in fact do you think happened?
LDM
LDM
#6
Ralliart
-
- 669 posts
- Joined: June 02
Member
Posted 24 June 2002 - 13:27
I would have to agree with Mr. Gamble. Nothing I read before his letter appeared, obviously, had the answer for me and nothing I've read since his article appeared has given me any reason to doubt what he had to say.
I do wonder how many of Clark's EUROPEAN races Chapman missed over the years. Skiing? In April? What the **** was that all about?
I do wonder how many of Clark's EUROPEAN races Chapman missed over the years. Skiing? In April? What the **** was that all about?
#7
Vitesse2
-
- 43,403 posts
- Joined: April 01
Administrator
Posted 24 June 2002 - 13:54
Originally posted by Ralliart
I do wonder how many of Clark's EUROPEAN races Chapman missed over the years. Skiing? In April? What the **** was that all about?
Graham Gauld in "Jim Clark Remembered" calls Chapman's holiday "well-deserved" - and people do go to |St Moritz for things other than skiing. I'm surprised you have to ask why though, as he'd have spent the entire winter working on the Lotus 56 Indianapolis car, the 49B, the 62, negotiating with John Player to set up GLTL ..... Chunky was not a great one for delegating tasks.
And a friendly piece of advice: language which passes unremarked in RC and PC is not necessarily appreciated here.
#8
Psychoman
-
- 2,711 posts
- Joined: March 99
Member
Posted 24 June 2002 - 14:05
Onlooking saloon driver Dick Sellens and others got Rindt out who, on his arrival in the pits, asked Gamble to contact Leo Mehl in England and the Goodyear hdq in Akron to get him back on the Brabham F1 team.
Wow, that's something interesting to hear regarding Jochen Rindt. I remember hearing a quote from someone (Rindt?) saying "If you want to win, join Lotus. If you want to live, join Brabham." This whole discussion kinda proves it
#9
Vitesse2
-
- 43,403 posts
- Joined: April 01
Administrator
Posted 24 June 2002 - 14:44
Some relevant quotes from the Farnborough report (my italics) -
Careful examination of every part of the car, including the whole of the front and rear suspension and steering systems, revealed that there was no evidence to indicate that any of these parts had become detached prior to the impact, all retaining bolts were in place, there was no sign of fatigue or failure of any component and each and every failure of these components was consistent with impact failure ....
Only one tyre, the left rear, was still inflated and there was indication of it having slid sideways from right or left over mud and grass. The two front tyres were sound but showed signs of impact and the wheels were fractured. The right rear tyre was deflated and had small cut in the tread which prevented its retaining air when reinflated.
Quote from PF Jowitt, who was an RAC scrutineer and Farnborough accident investigator: "Having examined every failed part of the car, most of them under magnification, I can say with no hesitation there was no evidence of pre-impact structural failure. All the failures are entirely consistent with accident damage."
The others involved in the investigation were Colin Chapman, Keith Duckworth of Cosworth and Chris Parry of Firestone.
Had the suspension failed, the tyre would surely have shown signs of road surface damage, not just mud and grass - no mention of that, I notice.
Careful examination of every part of the car, including the whole of the front and rear suspension and steering systems, revealed that there was no evidence to indicate that any of these parts had become detached prior to the impact, all retaining bolts were in place, there was no sign of fatigue or failure of any component and each and every failure of these components was consistent with impact failure ....
Only one tyre, the left rear, was still inflated and there was indication of it having slid sideways from right or left over mud and grass. The two front tyres were sound but showed signs of impact and the wheels were fractured. The right rear tyre was deflated and had small cut in the tread which prevented its retaining air when reinflated.
Quote from PF Jowitt, who was an RAC scrutineer and Farnborough accident investigator: "Having examined every failed part of the car, most of them under magnification, I can say with no hesitation there was no evidence of pre-impact structural failure. All the failures are entirely consistent with accident damage."
The others involved in the investigation were Colin Chapman, Keith Duckworth of Cosworth and Chris Parry of Firestone.
Had the suspension failed, the tyre would surely have shown signs of road surface damage, not just mud and grass - no mention of that, I notice.
#10
borsari
-
- 64 posts
- Joined: December 00
Member
Posted 24 June 2002 - 15:54
As an aside, you can ski in April in switzerland. In fact, I have skied there in April and in August.
#11
effone2k
-
- 244 posts
- Joined: July 01
Member
Posted 24 June 2002 - 16:34
Originally posted by Vitesse2
And a friendly piece of advice: language which passes unremarked in RC and PC is not necessarily appreciated here.
I guess some of the staff writers aren't aware of this. One of them used the same f word describing what Ferrari did to Rubens at Austria this year.;)
#12
Liam
-
- 504 posts
- Joined: February 02
Member
Posted 24 June 2002 - 17:22
Same word, different context and meaning.
#13
Doug Nye
-
- 11,937 posts
- Joined: February 02
Member
Posted 24 June 2002 - 19:36
Returning to the subject - I suspct much of this is hooey... Fred Gamble is a good man in my experience, and would be a reliable witness, so his might have been an honest opinion. I knew Peter Jowitt quite well - he did slot-car performance tests for 'Miniature Auto' magazine when I worked on it - and was pretty hard-nosed and reliable. Peter's post mortem on the car I would take absolutely at face value. As an aircraft accident investigator he was pretty much unimpeachable and if he read the wreckage of anything, it is VERY unlikely he would have pulled punches on anything in his report - however inconvenient that might have become for any of the interested parties.
DCN
DCN
#14
Barry Boor
-
- 11,557 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 24 June 2002 - 22:01
Jim is gone; and so is Colin.
After 34 years, does it REALLY matter whether it was tyre, suspension or whatever?
We lost the greatest and I think we all accept it was NOT driver error.
'Nuff said, I think.
After 34 years, does it REALLY matter whether it was tyre, suspension or whatever?
We lost the greatest and I think we all accept it was NOT driver error.
'Nuff said, I think.
#15
lynmeredith
-
- 174 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 24 June 2002 - 22:24
Vitesse, I've been hoping to see that. Where was the Farnborough report published? Is there any more detail or just this summary?
Ralliart,
The death of Jim Clark is rather like the death of Kennedy, there's an answer for everyone. Pay your money, take your choice. There's even a conspiracy (between the RAE investigator, Firestone and Chapman) if you subscribe to the broken part theory. Fred Gamble is a friend of mine and was my boss at Goodyear Racing Division. I wish we could get him on this forum. He told me some years ago that that was his understanding but I didn't know that it had been published. Was there any follow-up to Gamble's letter in On Track magazine; any agreement or refuting of his statement? It's very positive, after all. I don't know of On Track; a US magazine I presume?
As Doug Nye says it would be surprising if the investigator covered anything up. Presumably tests were done at RAE Farnborough and would still be on file there (unless there was a conspiracy!). As to Chapman not being there at Hockenheim, that would not be unusual. He didn't attend too many of the 'minor' events from my memory. But what is the significance of that? Jim Endruweit was there and was perfectly capable of managing the F2 team.
What's the point? It won't bring him back.
Lyn Meredith
Ralliart,
The death of Jim Clark is rather like the death of Kennedy, there's an answer for everyone. Pay your money, take your choice. There's even a conspiracy (between the RAE investigator, Firestone and Chapman) if you subscribe to the broken part theory. Fred Gamble is a friend of mine and was my boss at Goodyear Racing Division. I wish we could get him on this forum. He told me some years ago that that was his understanding but I didn't know that it had been published. Was there any follow-up to Gamble's letter in On Track magazine; any agreement or refuting of his statement? It's very positive, after all. I don't know of On Track; a US magazine I presume?
As Doug Nye says it would be surprising if the investigator covered anything up. Presumably tests were done at RAE Farnborough and would still be on file there (unless there was a conspiracy!). As to Chapman not being there at Hockenheim, that would not be unusual. He didn't attend too many of the 'minor' events from my memory. But what is the significance of that? Jim Endruweit was there and was perfectly capable of managing the F2 team.
What's the point? It won't bring him back.
Lyn Meredith
#16
Ian McKean
-
- 480 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 24 June 2002 - 22:26
Originally posted by Barry Boor
Jim is gone; and so is Colin.
After 34 years, does it REALLY matter whether it was tyre, suspension or whatever?
We lost the greatest and I think we all accept it was NOT driver error.
'Nuff said, I think.
But can we all be certain it was not driver error? I think not. It was not exactly as if Jim Clark never spun. And these Firestones were by all accounts not good in the wet.
#17
Vitesse2
-
- 43,403 posts
- Joined: April 01
Administrator
Posted 24 June 2002 - 22:43
Originally posted by lynmeredith
Vitesse, I've been hoping to see that. Where was the Farnborough report published? Is there any more detail or just this summary?
Lyn - I'm not sure if the full report was officially "published" as such. Those quotes make up about half of the version released to the press, which is in the Gauld book I mentioned above. Gauld says the report was "sent off to the various interested parties". I do remember seeing a published report sometime in the 70s, but whether that was the full Farnborough report I don't know.
#18
Ray Bell
-
- 82,257 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 24 June 2002 - 23:00
Originally posted by lynmeredith
..... Fred Gamble is a friend of mine and was my boss at Goodyear Racing Division. I wish we could get him on this forum......
Come on Lyn... work on him. A man of his knowledge, insight and experience would be an outstanding addition to the ranks.
His close association with Brabham and Gurney, and the Honda team and then Stewart would mean he has secrets yet to be revealed to us...
He was there through the development of slicks, and when all the teams were on Goodyears, and from the beginning he was a part of the Goodyear push to beat all comers...
Can I have some backing here to push Lyn in this issue?
#19
lynmeredith
-
- 174 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 24 June 2002 - 23:18
Ray, I wish I could help. When he was with us here in Australia last year I showed him Atlas F1 and the NF. He was impressed but remained resolutely against putting himself on-line.Originally posted by Ray Bell
Come on Lyn... work on him. A man of his knowledge, insight and experience would be an outstanding addition to the ranks.
His close association with Brabham and Gurney, and the Honda team and then Stewart would mean he has secrets yet to be revealed to us...
He was there through the development of slicks, and when all the teams were on Goodyears, and from the beginning he was a part of the Goodyear push to beat all comers...
Can I have some backing here to push Lyn in this issue?
Lyn M
Advertisement
#20
Wolf
-
- 7,883 posts
- Joined: June 00
Member
Posted 24 June 2002 - 23:34
This is rather interesting... Both Gamble and Farnborough are described here as competent men with integrity. Yet both with authority and confidence say quite different things... How can that be? Maybe here's the answer:
Before I proceed with my, now apparent, train of though, what I want to say is that $hit happens. And sometimes, even if certain piece of equipment fails, nobody is to blame...
But if Firestone tyre did cause the crash and I was Firestone looking to avoid bad publicity of Clark's accident I wouldn't be as obvious as to simply deny it, not with experts like Farnborough on the other side. Wouldn't it be easier to plant a 'manufactured evidence' to another impartial competent observer, whose testimony would be bound to cause confusion and cast the doubt over other (for me unfavourable) testimonies?
BTW, I'm not saying it did happen that way, but it could explain the opposite conclusive reports by two reliable experts... :
Firestone engineers showed me the tire off the Clark car, not deflated or failed, but obviously dragged sideways after a suspension failure.
Before I proceed with my, now apparent, train of though, what I want to say is that $hit happens. And sometimes, even if certain piece of equipment fails, nobody is to blame...
But if Firestone tyre did cause the crash and I was Firestone looking to avoid bad publicity of Clark's accident I wouldn't be as obvious as to simply deny it, not with experts like Farnborough on the other side. Wouldn't it be easier to plant a 'manufactured evidence' to another impartial competent observer, whose testimony would be bound to cause confusion and cast the doubt over other (for me unfavourable) testimonies?
BTW, I'm not saying it did happen that way, but it could explain the opposite conclusive reports by two reliable experts... :
#21
lynmeredith
-
- 174 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 25 June 2002 - 00:17
Wolf, you and I have similar minds! That was what I thought when I read the Gamble statement. But the planting of evidence scenario would only have worked if the news had got out at the time and Fred was careful to say that nothing was said at the time to respect Chapman's feelings. But Fred Gamble is not naive and I doubt that he would have fallen for that.
How do you feel about Lee Harvey Oswald? Me too.
Lyn M
How do you feel about Lee Harvey Oswald? Me too.
Lyn M
#22
fines
-
- 9,647 posts
- Joined: September 00
Member
Posted 25 June 2002 - 15:11
Why would that be SO important? Would it make him a lesser man?Originally posted by Barry Boor
We lost the greatest and I think we all accept it was NOT driver error.
I always hear that stuff, maybe the tyres, maybe a suspension or steering failure but, please, NOT a driver error! Why??
Racind drivers are humans, not superhuman. Even the best make mistakes. Wolfgang von Trips and Ayrton Senna are two prominent examples who died because of driver errors, and Stirling Moss (1962) and Niki Lauda (1976) came pretty close for the same reason. We of all people at least should stop with that hero worshipping! It's inappropriate.
#23
Dave Ware
-
- 998 posts
- Joined: March 00
Member
Posted 25 June 2002 - 16:54
It was Bernie Ecclestone who advised Rindt that if he wanted to live, "...drive for Brabham..." etc.
#24
Bernd
-
- 3,313 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 25 June 2002 - 23:47
Add Fangio to the nearly died list Fines I wouldn't call a broken neck a mere trifle.
In regards to the possibility of driver error one has to take into account where the accident occured. It is not a point where a club driver could stuff up and plant it in the trees let alone the greatest driver then racing. The corner was totally flat with minimal steering input required. For a car to enter the broad oversteer drift required to hit the tree side on as happened and taking into account the marshalls report of the cars behavior immediately prior to the shunt it is entirely consistant with a puncture as was claimed in the report.
As for Chapman covering it up that is utter bollocks, Chapman was totally distraught and stricken with grief at the time and nearly gave up racing altogether. I believe that the only reason he was able to carry on is that it was a random puncture and not a failing of his car that did his friend Jimmy in. Chapman devoted a large chunk of change to finding out exactly what happened and spared no expense in the investigation.
Also it is not like Chapman had ever hidden from the reality of the frailty of his cars before, ask Moss.
There is a lot of rubbish in this thread as Doug says one thing Ralliart brings up the Ickx incident in Spain. Anyway Jimmy was in no way 'pissed' as you put it. He simply clapped Jacky on the back and said something along the lines of 'that's racing'
In regards to the possibility of driver error one has to take into account where the accident occured. It is not a point where a club driver could stuff up and plant it in the trees let alone the greatest driver then racing. The corner was totally flat with minimal steering input required. For a car to enter the broad oversteer drift required to hit the tree side on as happened and taking into account the marshalls report of the cars behavior immediately prior to the shunt it is entirely consistant with a puncture as was claimed in the report.
As for Chapman covering it up that is utter bollocks, Chapman was totally distraught and stricken with grief at the time and nearly gave up racing altogether. I believe that the only reason he was able to carry on is that it was a random puncture and not a failing of his car that did his friend Jimmy in. Chapman devoted a large chunk of change to finding out exactly what happened and spared no expense in the investigation.
Also it is not like Chapman had ever hidden from the reality of the frailty of his cars before, ask Moss.
There is a lot of rubbish in this thread as Doug says one thing Ralliart brings up the Ickx incident in Spain. Anyway Jimmy was in no way 'pissed' as you put it. He simply clapped Jacky on the back and said something along the lines of 'that's racing'
#25
lynmeredith
-
- 174 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 26 June 2002 - 00:38
It's strange but although I was there I can remember nothing of practice or the race. I can't even think why I was there. There must have been some Goodyear runners in the race (to justify my being there) but looking at the names Ralliart listed in his intro I can't remember any being on Goodyear. Brabhams were not there, right? Who else? Was there a John Wilment Racing entry? Why the hell was I there? Perhaps I need hypnotherapy.
Or was there a supporting race that might have been of interest to Goodyear? A heat of the European Touring Car championship? Or a sports car race? Any one got an entry list or programme?
I'm getting too old that's the problem.
Lyn M
(what's happened to Ralliart by the way. Is he upset? Come back Ralliart)
Or was there a supporting race that might have been of interest to Goodyear? A heat of the European Touring Car championship? Or a sports car race? Any one got an entry list or programme?
I'm getting too old that's the problem.
Lyn M
(what's happened to Ralliart by the way. Is he upset? Come back Ralliart)
#26
Barry Lake
-
- 2,169 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 26 June 2002 - 01:32
Originally posted by fines
Racind drivers are humans, not superhuman. Even the best make mistakes. Wolfgang von Trips and Ayrton Senna are two prominent examples who died because of driver errors, and Stirling Moss (1962) and Niki Lauda (1976) came pretty close for the same reason. We of all people at least should stop with that hero worshipping! It's inappropriate.
Agreed, 100 per cent.
Racing drivers are real people with real faults and failings. There have been too many books setting successful drivers as some kind of god-like creature. Often, successful racing drivers, like successful entertainers, and business-people have greater insecurities than the rest of us - which is the driving force that makes them successful.
Some are not even nice people and have pulled some seriously underhanded acts on the path to the top.
None of which should prevent us from admiring their achievements but, as Fines says, TNF is not the place for blind hero worship. Here, I believe, is where people come to learn the truth - or as near to it as we can get.
Bring on more books like Gerald Donaldson's on Gilles Villeneuve.
#27
Milan Fistonic
-
- 1,769 posts
- Joined: September 00
Member
Posted 26 June 2002 - 08:45
Originally posted by lynmeredith
It's strange but although I was there I can remember nothing of practice or the race. I can't even think why I was there. There must have been some Goodyear runners in the race (to justify my being there) but looking at the names Ralliart listed in his intro I can't remember any being on Goodyear. Brabhams were not there, right? Who else? Was there a John Wilment Racing entry? Why the hell was I there? Perhaps I need hypnotherapy.
Or was there a supporting race that might have been of interest to Goodyear? A heat of the European Touring Car championship? Or a sports car race? Any one got an entry list or programme?
I'm getting too old that's the problem.
Lyn M
(what's happened to Ralliart by the way. Is he upset? Come back Ralliart)
The entry for the F2 race.
Lotus - Clark & G.Hill
Matra - Beltoise & Pescarolo
Ferrari - Amon
McLaren (Chequered Flag) - Widdows & Lawrence
McLaren (Ecurie Inter Sport) - Schlesser & Ligier
McLaren - Lamplough
Lola - Irwin
Tecno - Facetti
Chevron - Gethin
Brabham - Ahrens, Bell, Courage, Lambert, Mosley, Perrot
Lotus 41B - Habegger
There is no mention of supporting races in the Motoring News report.
#28
Milan Fistonic
-
- 1,769 posts
- Joined: September 00
Member
Posted 26 June 2002 - 08:57
Originally posted by fines
Racind drivers are humans, not superhuman. Even the best make mistakes. Wolfgang von Trips and Ayrton Senna are two prominent examples who died because of driver errors, and Stirling Moss (1962) and Niki Lauda (1976) came pretty close for the same reason. We of all people at least should stop with that hero worshipping! It's inappropriate.
One of the conclusions arrived at in the Grand Prix Accident Survey 1996-72 published by the Jim Clark Foundation was that in 48.6 per cent of the accidents that were surveyed, driver error was the apparent cause.
#29
Ray Bell
-
- 82,257 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 26 June 2002 - 09:10
Originally posted by fines
.....We of all people at least should stop with that hero worshipping! It's inappropriate.
Of course it is.
That's not to say that these 'icons' were (or are) not of such stature as to be expected to be superhuman. Many of them have been, capable of performances well beyond the reach of most people.
But to worship them is wrong. And to expect them to be infallible is equally wrong.
Problem is that they operated in that rarified atmosphere where error could mean sudden death.
#30
Uwe
-
- 707 posts
- Joined: June 00
Member
Posted 26 June 2002 - 10:08
Michael,Originally posted by fines
Why would that be SO important? Would it make him a lesser man?
I always hear that stuff, maybe the tyres, maybe a suspension or steering failure but, please, NOT a driver error! Why??
Racind drivers are humans, not superhuman. Even the best make mistakes. Wolfgang von Trips and Ayrton Senna are two prominent examples who died because of driver errors, and Stirling Moss (1962) and Niki Lauda (1976) came pretty close for the same reason. We of all people at least should stop with that hero worshipping! It's inappropriate.
as far as I understood it is unclear until today whether Senna died from having made an error. The part of the track where his accident happened wasn't difficult to drive, but very dangerous in case of a car failure.
As it goes for Moss' accident Graham Hill thought it had been a car failure as well, so unclear too. And about Lauda's accident there were a lot of discussions whether he made an error or the rear suspension failed.
I do not want to state that none of those accidents were driver errors, only that we don't know for sure that it were driver errors. However, I agree with you on the fact that even the best drivers can make errors and it doesn't take anything away from them.
Uwe
#31
Ralliart
-
- 669 posts
- Joined: June 02
Member
Posted 26 June 2002 - 11:07
Bernd,
About my rubbish and writing that Clark was pissed at Ickx...I was merely repeating what my sources said of the incident at Montjuich Park - "...he was rammed from behind on the first lap by Jacky Ickx. Clark retired extremely cross, with damaged rear suspension." Eric Dymock...."Was he ever angry!" Dave Sims.
As for Clark clapping Ickx on the back, that's consistent with what I've read of Clark and Ickx who said in '68, that Clark was one of the first to welcome him to the 'GP circus'. Ickx had great regard for Clark and it very possibly a mutual admiration society.
Milan - In that survey from '66-'72, I'd be interested to know what the percentage of driver error-accidents were when the driver was ALONE.
As for my poor choice of words in my opening comments - that's what it was.
About my rubbish and writing that Clark was pissed at Ickx...I was merely repeating what my sources said of the incident at Montjuich Park - "...he was rammed from behind on the first lap by Jacky Ickx. Clark retired extremely cross, with damaged rear suspension." Eric Dymock...."Was he ever angry!" Dave Sims.
As for Clark clapping Ickx on the back, that's consistent with what I've read of Clark and Ickx who said in '68, that Clark was one of the first to welcome him to the 'GP circus'. Ickx had great regard for Clark and it very possibly a mutual admiration society.
Milan - In that survey from '66-'72, I'd be interested to know what the percentage of driver error-accidents were when the driver was ALONE.
As for my poor choice of words in my opening comments - that's what it was.
#32
lynmeredith
-
- 174 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 26 June 2002 - 11:11
Hmm, thank you Milan. I still don't know. Some of those names bring back a few memories though. (Mosley, eh? Wonder what happened to him?Originally posted by Milan Fistonic
The entry for the F2 race.
Lotus - Clark & G.Hill
Matra - Beltoise & Pescarolo
Ferrari - Amon
McLaren (Chequered Flag) - Widdows & Lawrence
McLaren (Ecurie Inter Sport) - Schlesser & Ligier
McLaren - Lamplough
Lola - Irwin
Tecno - Facetti
Chevron - Gethin
Brabham - Ahrens, Bell, Courage, Lambert, Mosley, Perrot
Lotus 41B - Habegger
There is no mention of supporting races in the Motoring News report.
). Some of those Brabham and McLaren pilots could have been on Goodyear. Even the Schlesser/Ligier entry. Damn, why didn't I keep records? Am I right in remembering that Ecurie Inter Sport was originally named Ecurie Inter Course until some Britisher had a word with Guy Ligier?Perhaps I should try to find some pictures? Any suggestions, anyone?
Regards
Lyn M
#33
fines
-
- 9,647 posts
- Joined: September 00
Member
Posted 26 June 2002 - 15:20
Just to clear up my point: My list wasn't meant to be exclusive, nor was I trying to suggest Clark's accident was down to a driver error. It's just that it doesn't bother me too much, at least very much less than these worshipping comments. And sorry, Barry, but I'm not getting on you here in particular, in fact I don't think that you're very much of a hero worshipper, but your comment just sparked off my ire because it reminded me of some rather stupid comments, mostly from the Senna camp. And even if I can't prove it was a driver error in the Brazilian's case, nobody is able to prove otherwise, and in my opinion the evidence is pretty clear that it was indeed a driver error. Whether he drove over a piece of debris from the startline crash, the tyres were not up to working temperature or the car bottomed out, the bottom line is he should've lifted and opted not to do.
#34
Barry Lake
-
- 2,169 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 26 June 2002 - 17:31
From the day it happened until now, I have never been able to understand why so many people ruled out driver error in Senna's crash.
Watching it "live" on TV, I couldn't believe he made it through that corner on the lap prior to the one on which he crashed. Nor, from memory, could my three companions that day (night in Australia), one of whom was Jack Brabham, another was John Goss, winner of the Australian GP and Bathurst (twice). We were watching the race on the TV in Jack's motel room after the final day of Targa Tasmania.
That car looked uncontrollable at that speed through that bumpy corner. Prudence would surely have suggested a little less speed there. But Senna was desperate - having had a bad start to the year, and appeared more than a little rattled by the pace of a certain young German driver.
I suspect it is memories of that day that prompted Schumacher to say once that if a young driver begins to challenge him, he will retire.
Watching it "live" on TV, I couldn't believe he made it through that corner on the lap prior to the one on which he crashed. Nor, from memory, could my three companions that day (night in Australia), one of whom was Jack Brabham, another was John Goss, winner of the Australian GP and Bathurst (twice). We were watching the race on the TV in Jack's motel room after the final day of Targa Tasmania.
That car looked uncontrollable at that speed through that bumpy corner. Prudence would surely have suggested a little less speed there. But Senna was desperate - having had a bad start to the year, and appeared more than a little rattled by the pace of a certain young German driver.
I suspect it is memories of that day that prompted Schumacher to say once that if a young driver begins to challenge him, he will retire.
#35
Ray Bell
-
- 82,257 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 26 June 2002 - 21:40
I've never heard anything like that before, Barry...
I must have a look at the tape. I'll get my brother to dig it out, he has them all.
However, do you call a lack of caution, where such caution would normally be unnecessary, is really 'driver error'?
One can, of course, easily understand his concern for the points. He had gone to Williams expecting to dominate the year, plaster his name over all the one-season records, it would be easy to lose the plot.
I must have a look at the tape. I'll get my brother to dig it out, he has them all.
However, do you call a lack of caution, where such caution would normally be unnecessary, is really 'driver error'?
One can, of course, easily understand his concern for the points. He had gone to Williams expecting to dominate the year, plaster his name over all the one-season records, it would be easy to lose the plot.
#36
Roger Clark
-
- 7,570 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 26 June 2002 - 22:47
I don't understand statemnts about desperation and losing the plot. Senna was a racing driver, on the limit and under pressure. In these circumstances, mistakes will sometimes be made and machinery will sometimes break. That is something that those of us who grew up in the 60s and earlier learned to accept.
These circumstances didn't apply in the case of Jim Clark, and that's what makes it all the harder to accept.
These circumstances didn't apply in the case of Jim Clark, and that's what makes it all the harder to accept.
#37
Barry Lake
-
- 2,169 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 27 June 2002 - 06:43
Roger, I agree there should have been no need for desperation in the case of Jim Clark's crash.
I have read most of what has been written about it over the years and have always believed the deflated right rear tyre theory was the most likely.
A rival driver of the time once told me, pointing out what he believed (or perhaps would have liked) to be a shortcoming in Clark's make-up, that he had previously seen Clark with a deflating tyre in a race and he continued to drive the car flat out way beyond the time when this driver felt he should have been able to feel that a tyre was deflating. Said driver related that Clark continued at unabated pace until he finally crashed. His theory was that a similar situation had occurrred at Hockenheim.
I'm not saying this is correct, just that this is what I was told.
I have read most of what has been written about it over the years and have always believed the deflated right rear tyre theory was the most likely.
A rival driver of the time once told me, pointing out what he believed (or perhaps would have liked) to be a shortcoming in Clark's make-up, that he had previously seen Clark with a deflating tyre in a race and he continued to drive the car flat out way beyond the time when this driver felt he should have been able to feel that a tyre was deflating. Said driver related that Clark continued at unabated pace until he finally crashed. His theory was that a similar situation had occurrred at Hockenheim.
I'm not saying this is correct, just that this is what I was told.
#38
Roger Clark
-
- 7,570 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 27 June 2002 - 18:23
With his sensitivity and ability to adapt his driving style, it seems unlikely that Clark wouldn't have known a tyre was deflating. Could anyone identify which race this other driver was referring to?
#39
Doug Nye
-
- 11,937 posts
- Joined: February 02
Member
Posted 27 June 2002 - 22:53
Jack Brabham - following Jimmy in Formula 2 at Rouen - Jim's deflating tyre lost grip and as his Lotus went out of control there was a pretty comprehensive multiple collision. Blackie's still convinced that Jim had this blind spot in his capabilities - it's a compelling opinion from an immensely well-qualified and manifestly experienced observer ... but .... I think there's a big difference here, in some ways - not least the Rouen tyre having an inner tube and the Hockenheim tyre being tubeless.... Lyn???? Expert input?
DCN
DCN
Advertisement
#40
lynmeredith
-
- 174 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 28 June 2002 - 03:21
Doug, I've no 'expert input' to offer but I've been thinking about this too and I assume that the Firestone tyres at Hockenheim were tubeless. This would account for the so-called 'explosive deflation' (which has caused some people to assume, incorrectly, that the tyre 'exploded'). A tubeless tyre would be likely to hold some amount of air due to a certain amount of 'self-sealing' but of course any air would be released immediately when the bead slipped into the wheel-well. A tubed tyre might be expected to deflate more quickly, but if the leak was very slow I would expect some air to be trapped in the tube and even if the bead slipped into the wheel-well the tyre might not collapse completely. It would certainly feel very peculiar but Clark seems to have been adept at coping with peculiarities. Both of these scenarios would assume that only a very small penetration had taken place, such as from a nail.Originally posted by Doug Nye
Jack Brabham - following Jimmy in Formula 2 at Rouen - Jim's deflating tyre lost grip and as his Lotus went out of control there was a pretty comprehensive multiple collision. Blackie's still convinced that Jim had this blind spot in his capabilities - it's a compelling opinion from an immensely well-qualified and manifestly experienced observer ... but .... I think there's a big difference here, in some ways - not least the Rouen tyre having an inner tube and the Hockenheim tyre being tubeless.... Lyn???? Expert input?
DCN
But of course Fred Gamble says the tyre did not give way!. Anyone want to give Fred a call? He's in Colorado and just back from two months in Hawaii so is probably feeling mellow. We also need Leo Mehl and Walt Devinney on the panel. Or one of the Firestone boys. There's never a tyre/tire engineer around when you need one.
LDM
#41
fines
-
- 9,647 posts
- Joined: September 00
Member
Posted 28 June 2002 - 18:16
Oops, I thought YOU were one!Originally posted by lynmeredith
There's never a tyre/tire engineer around when you need one.
#42
lynmeredith
-
- 174 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 29 June 2002 - 03:51
Originally posted by fines
Oops, I thought YOU were one!
Nope, I'm afraid not, just a tyre fitter. That's why I'm always hoping to get an expert on the show.
LDM
#43
The Runner
-
- 48 posts
- Joined: April 02
Member
Posted 29 June 2002 - 07:24
I hadn't seen this photo of Jimmy's accident till I found it surfing last week. I can't seem to find a larger version either, I thought it may add something to the thread is all.... click and scroll down the page, I think it is a page about danger, something like that...
http://memopolis.uni...ft/prosser.html
http://memopolis.uni...ft/prosser.html
#44
masterhit
-
- 1,837 posts
- Joined: May 02
Member
Posted 10 July 2003 - 21:36
Sometimes a photo really can hit you harder than words.
Makes you realise that we will all go one day..
Makes you realise that we will all go one day..
#45
Ray Bell
-
- 82,257 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 10 July 2003 - 21:59
That's not nearly as badly torn apart (in that photo) as the Niel Allen McLaren was... and he had a sprained finger.
#46
Bernd
-
- 3,313 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 10 July 2003 - 23:42
That's a shot of the FVA and rear assembly. The tub was quite some way away from there, near the point of impact.
#47
BorderReiver
-
- 9,957 posts
- Joined: April 03
Member
Posted 10 July 2003 - 23:56
I sincerely hope that no-one takes this question the wrong way, and I mean absolutely no offense by it, afterall Jimmy Clark is pretty much my all time hero.
But I have never ever been clear on the immediate aftermath of the accident. Was Jimmy killed instantly, or did he die in the ambulance or at the hospital? I have heard all three of these explanations before and to be honest I have no idea which to beleive. And what exactly where the extent of his injuries?
I have also heard, I can't remember where, that Graham Hill identified Jimmy's body, is this true?
I realise that this is an extremely sensitive subject, as Jimmy is probably the most universally admired driver on this board, and I stress that I mean no disrespect by asking these questions.
However I do beleive that they are important in an historical context, and of course as the end of Jimmy's story.
It is of course more important to remember the acheivements in someone's life, rather than the manner of their death, but if we really are historians we should not be afraid of attempting to answer these questions.
I hope I haven't upset anyone with this post, that honestly isn't my intention.
But I have never ever been clear on the immediate aftermath of the accident. Was Jimmy killed instantly, or did he die in the ambulance or at the hospital? I have heard all three of these explanations before and to be honest I have no idea which to beleive. And what exactly where the extent of his injuries?
I have also heard, I can't remember where, that Graham Hill identified Jimmy's body, is this true?
I realise that this is an extremely sensitive subject, as Jimmy is probably the most universally admired driver on this board, and I stress that I mean no disrespect by asking these questions.
However I do beleive that they are important in an historical context, and of course as the end of Jimmy's story.
It is of course more important to remember the acheivements in someone's life, rather than the manner of their death, but if we really are historians we should not be afraid of attempting to answer these questions.
I hope I haven't upset anyone with this post, that honestly isn't my intention.
#48
Bernd
-
- 3,313 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 11 July 2003 - 00:08
Jimmy died instantly of a broken neck.
#49
Ray Bell
-
- 82,257 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 11 July 2003 - 00:18
Originally posted by Bernd
That's a shot of the FVA and rear assembly. The tub was quite some way away from there, near the point of impact.
I realise that, Bernd...
But even so, this bit is less damaged than the similar bits of Niel's car. And all the pics I've seen show the same thing. The difference, of course, is that Niel was restrained and he was rolling rather than clobbering trees.
#50
Bernd
-
- 3,313 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 11 July 2003 - 00:31
I wasn't talking to you in particular Ray I was merely identifying the photo.
The aftermath of Jimmys shunt has always been kept in the shadows, much more so than compared to say Rindt's or Bandini's. None of the books on Clark delve deeply into it.
Hill identifying the body... As Chapman wasn't there this sounds right.
Other injuries? Whilst Clark had never so much as broken his skin in other accidents this certainly would not have been the case in the accident. I haven't seen the autopsy report but I would hazard a guess that there would have been massive internal injuries, as the tree impacted right on the side number roundel of the car.
The aftermath of Jimmys shunt has always been kept in the shadows, much more so than compared to say Rindt's or Bandini's. None of the books on Clark delve deeply into it.
Hill identifying the body... As Chapman wasn't there this sounds right.
Other injuries? Whilst Clark had never so much as broken his skin in other accidents this certainly would not have been the case in the accident. I haven't seen the autopsy report but I would hazard a guess that there would have been massive internal injuries, as the tree impacted right on the side number roundel of the car.
