51 replies to this topic

[Powersteer]

With all the stuff i read about him, getting a drive at Ferrari along side Villeneuve while making a good racer like Villeneuve dispise him, was Pironi quick? what happened to him after Villeneuves death?

[Jordi #99]

Well, Pironi was very quick. After Gilles' death, and had it not been for two badly-broken legs, Pironi would surely have won the title, as after his career-ending crash at Hockenheim he still finished 2nd to Rosberg.

[dmj]

Hard to say. He looked very quick while in Ligier, then looked tame against Villeneuve in Ferrari. But Enzo didn't sack him so he obviously have seen something else. It was shown in 1982. Now, we can approach different scenarios of that year but if it wasn't for a string of tragedies in Ferrari team, one of them had to be champion. Gilles or Didier? A matter of personal opinion. I believe Didier was the one. So, how fast actually he was? Very, very fast - enough to be a champion, not exactly enough to put him in top league of all times.

[fines]

I agree: Not an all-time great, but a surefire candidate for the title in the right car. He was indeed overshadowed by Villeneuve in 1981, but only superficially, i.e. Gilles scored two very unlikely wins in a difficult car, while most of the time both struggled on on almost equal terms. Remember, Villeneuve's was his 4th season with the team , while Pironi was the new boy. For him to usually qualify within half a second, and sometimes even beat Villeneuve was quite a good showing. He had a few scintillating races, like Zolder or Montréal, but very little luck. At the time I was very apprehensive about how their duel would work out in '82, and actually felt that Didier would end up holding the upper hand. Too bad we never came to witness the true scope of this intra-team duel.

[Keir]

I think that if one puts any weight on "karma." Didier did his no good with the antics at San Marino.
Regardless, he was a good racer, and life is rarely fair to those who spend their's on the edge.

[RedFever]

"He was indeed overshadowed by Villeneuve in 1981, but only superficially"

I actually believe that Gilles completly dominated Didier in 1981, showing the Didier was a very fast driver, but one that needed a good car to deliever a solid performance. Unlike Gilles or Schumacher or Peterson, he wasn't capable to compensate with talent when the car was unstable.

What I find superficial (no offense, please, just being straightforward) is your version of the 1981 season. Gilles outqualified Didier 10 to 5. While Gilles was in his 4th season with Ferrari, the two drivers had appoximately the same F1 seniority. As Jacques Villeneuve showed in 1997 and Kimi in 2002, if you are good you can outqualify your teammate even if he was with the team for a while. The reality is that the 126C had the worst chassis Ferrari produced in the past 30 years. Gilles managed not only to win 2 races with it, but he was also on pole in Imola....... He was able to drive a bad car fast, Didier no.

The differential in qual was 0.62 in Gilles favor, which is an enormity in F1. A tent hor two is understandable, 2/3 of a second is a wooping. Gilles twice was in front row (once on pole), Didier never on front row.

Also, Gilles finished the season in 7th place with 25 points (2 wins, 3 podiums), Didier finished 13th with 9 points (0 wins, 0 podiums, best result 4th).

I can hardly find a season at Ferrari back then when one driver had dominated his teamate more soundly than Gilles in 1981.

Then 1982 comes and you suggest that Didier was going to be the one who would have won the WDC without accidents (since obviously the 126C2 was the overall best car, even Mario at 42 years of age immediately placed it on pole in Monza and Tambay quickly won his first GP in it). But clearly you failed to recall that out of the first 4 races, Gilles outqualified Didier all four times!!! (in the last race, ZOlder, Didier was ahead of Gilles until Gilles crashed, and probably would have stayed that way, but the differential was 0.11", so they were very close). The differential for 1982 until Zolder was an average 1.06 per race (it goes to 0.82 including Zolder), which is another sound beating. Gilles was clearly much faster than Didier even with a well balanced car such as the 126C2. Both drivers arrived to Imola with little to show (Didier had one point, Gilles zero), but it was getting more and more clear that the picture would soon change (in fact, their car became excellent). There is little doubt that Didier stole the victory from Gilles in Imola. The team called for keeping positions after Arnoux's engine expired (Gilles had battled with Rene, forcing him to push on his fragile Renault engine), but later Didier decided to ignore the pit orders and pass Gilles. Whenever Didier was in front, their pace would be 2 seconds faster per lap. When Gilles was in the lead, they slowed dramatically (a sign that Gilles didn't expect Didier to steal the win until the very end). Therefore, if Didier didn't go to such low levels to feel good about himself, they would have left Imola with Gilles at 9 and Didier 7 points. And Gilles would have not felt compelled to keep lapping in Zolder on wornout tires in an impossible attempt to improve his time (with soft qual slicks, you only had one fast lap chance), had he been 1 tenth behind his friend Dider rather than Didier the Backstabber......

All in all, it is quite clear that Gilles completly towered Didier during their entire time together at Ferrari, something that caused Didier to eventually snap and feel compelled to betray his friend in order to win a race.

I agree that Didier was a good, solid driver. Had he not crashed, he would have walked away with the 1982 title (assuming Gilles did still die). Had they both managed to avoid accidents, Gilles would have won easily, considering how dominant he was in qual. Didier was more of a Damon Hill, capable of fantastic performances with a great car, but Gilles was more of a Senna/Schumacher, a guy capable of compensating with talent for his cars. Had he raced 150-160GPs rather than 67, his talent would appear also on stat books, not just in the memory of those who saw him race (actually, he only needed another 8-10GPs and he would have been WDC....). To keep Gilles results in perspective, keep in mind that Gilles was in reality still a quite inexperienced driver as far as F1 goes, he only raced 16 more GPs than Jenson Button has raced to date.........and Jenson is considered a newbie compared to Schumacher, Panis, JVilleneuve or Coulthard

[mera308gtb]

Jacques Villeneuve showed in 1997 and Kimi in 2002, if you are good you can outqualify your teammate even if he was with the team for a while.

Sorry to nitpick, but in 1997 Jacques was the senior driver in the team. It was his second year at Williams and Frentzen's first. Jacques first year at Wiliams, 1996, only saw him out-qualify Damon Hill twice, I believe.

Back on topic, I agree that Gilles was generally the superior driver. But I was very impressed with how Didier handled the pressure as he went for the Championship in 1982. His drive at Canada was superb under very difficult circumstances. I think he may have been the better driver over the course of a season. I don't know if Gilles would allow himself to play it safe if necessary. And he was still prone to mistakes, as in Brazil for example.

Whatever the outcome, it would have been a titanic year had the tragedy at Zolder not occurred.

[JacnGille]

Originally posted by mera308gtb


... I don't know if Gilles would allow himself to play it safe if necessary....

I seem to remember reading on a regular basis that Gilles made it clear that he was only interested in race wins.

[RedFever]

"I don't know if Gilles would allow himself to play it safe if necessary. And he was still prone to mistakes, as in Brazil for example."

The Gilles of 1982 was a far cry for the rookie of 78 and even 79. Sorry, but I disagree. In fact, his very last GP was the epithomy of playing it safe. He didn't go for a last attempt against Pironi in Imola to safeguard a Ferrari 1-2 rather than his personal interest. He had definetly matured and Imola 82 showed he was now not only the most talented of the lot, but had learned to use his intelligence as well. Once he realized Didier had touched him twice already to gain the lead, he decided to avoid a last lap attempt because he felt they would have colided and finisehd the race in the gravel. Gilles in 78 would have gone for it, in 82 he showed he was more mature and responsible of Didier. He would have prevailed easily.

[RedFever]

right, it was in 1996. However, because JV had three poles in his first year, he must have outqualified Hill at least 3 times. But my sentence was confusing, what I meant is that a rookie like JV managed to outqualify Hill in his first F1 GP and then was close to Hill all season. So, Pironi really has no excuse for being over 6 tenths slower for the entire 81 season, when it was his 4th full season in F1. Then in the first 4 races of 82, the gap is even larger, so Gilles actually was able to keep a huge gap between the two whether the car was bad or good.

[Rediscoveryx]

Originally posted by RedFever
"I don't know if Gilles would allow himself to play it safe if necessary. And he was still prone to mistakes, as in Brazil for example."

The Gilles of 1982 was a far cry for the rookie of 78 and even 79. Sorry, but I disagree. In fact, his very last GP was the epithomy of playing it safe. He didn't go for a last attempt against Pironi in Imola to safeguard a Ferrari 1-2 rather than his personal interest. He had definetly matured and Imola 82 showed he was now not only the most talented of the lot, but had learned to use his intelligence as well. Once he realized Didier had touched him twice already to gain the lead, he decided to avoid a last lap attempt because he felt they would have colided and finisehd the race in the gravel. Gilles in 78 would have gone for it, in 82 he showed he was more mature and responsible of Didier. He would have prevailed easily.

I'm not going to go into who the 1982 WDC would have been if the year had been free from serious accidents, but I don't agree with your view on Imola 82. Gilles was the first driver to pass his teammate after the 'SLOW'-sign was hung out, and Didier also led nearly all of the final ten laps of the race. On the penultimate lap he was passed by Gilles, Didier returned the favour on the final lap. I don't think he did anything wrong, however; Gilles would probably have won the race if it hadn't been for teamorders.

[baggish]

Originally posted by RedFever
In fact, his very last GP was the epithomy of playing it safe. He didn't go for a last attempt against Pironi in Imola to safeguard a Ferrari 1-2 rather than his personal interest. He had definetly matured and Imola 82 showed he was now not only the most talented of the lot, but had learned to use his intelligence as well. Once he realized Didier had touched him twice already to gain the lead, he decided to avoid a last lap attempt because he felt they would have colided and finisehd the race in the gravel. Gilles in 78 would have gone for it, in 82 he showed he was more mature and responsible of Didier. He would have prevailed easily.

Unfortunately, I think this is disproved by the events of Zolder. I don't know if there is a generally accepted opinion as to the cause of those events, but one view is that, post-Imola, GV felt he could not be beaten by DP, even in relatively unimportant wet practice sessions.

Quite often the question arises: who would have been WDC in a 1982 without accidents. Usually the answer given is GV or DP, but the answer almost always ignores the post-Imola feud. I had forgotten about the wheelbanging in Imola, but it suggests that the year could not have been accident-free (leading to lost races, not necessarily to injury). Perhaps a Ferrari driver would have won the title, but equally it is possible that they might have 'conspired' to lose the title, 1986-style.

Jon

[RedFever]

"Gilles was the first driver to pass his teammate after the 'SLOW'-sign was hung out, and Didier also led nearly all of the final ten laps of the race. On the penultimate lap he was passed by Gilles, Didier returned the favour on the final lap. I don't think he did anything wrong, however; Gilles would probably have won the race if it hadn't been for teamorders."

Did you actually follow the race and all the team orders? after Rene retired, Ferrari first posted "Keep 1-2". Later, when it was obvious Pironi had ignored the signs and everytime he was in the lead, the lap times would accelerate by as much as 2 seconds per lap, eventually the team exposed the "Slow" sign.

You can slice it as you want, but you are ignoring that the drivers at Ferrari back then had a gentleman agreement similar to DC and MH at McLaren couple of years ago. Who was ahead, kept the position, unless there was a mechanical problem. That was to avoid stupid accidents among teammates. Gilles had accepted losing a WDC in 1979 to respect this pact (twice he got on to Jody's side in Monza in 79, when Jody was going quite slow and twice, after Jody reassured him he had no problems with his car, Gilles slowed and followed his teammate again). Gilles simply didn't expect Dider would break this agreement and betray his word for a win. Gilles had been very supportive of the French in his first year at Ferrari and he considered him a friend. There is no doubt that Gilles and everyone at Ferrari considered the race over when Rene retired. Unfortunately, Piccinini was not Montezemolo and he failed to strongly communicate to Didier the team's intention. But that is besides the point, Gilles was distressed more by the betrayal than by losing a race. It is how the race was stolen from him that drove him insane, not losing one race.


"I had forgotten about the wheelbanging in Imola, but it suggests that the year could not have been accident-free (leading to lost races, not necessarily to injury). Perhaps a Ferrari driver would have won the title, but equally it is possible that they might have 'conspired' to lose the title, 1986-style."

It is quite possible, although Didier was normally starting from behind, so they didn't encounter each other too often during a race and there were no pit stops like there now in 82. So, i doubt they would have had more than one or two incidents, not enough to counter Ferrari's superiority.

But when we speculate on the "what if in 82", normally one considers what if Gilles didn't die, Didier didn't massacre himself and, of course, didn't betray Gilles, so that they would have continued just like in 81, two drivers, two cars, let the best man win. I have no doubt Gilles woul have prevailed. However, after Imola everything was changed. Gilles was furious with Didier but also with Piccinini and treatened toleave the team. Only old Enzo managed to calm him by publicly stating that indeed Imola's win should have been Gilles' since he was leading the race, he had challeneged Rene and once Rene DNFed, the race was over for Ferrari, since his drivers were leading. As the team showed clearly in the past 5 years, battles among teammate are not highly regarded there. Didier did the unexpected and I feel he pissed off the old man too. It was not a smart move to make normally and even less when one considers how much Ferrari respected Villeneuve.

Anyhow, Rosber won the WDC in 1982, I cannot think of a better driver to win the title Gilles seemed destined to win. Gilles really respected Keke and dispite the few wins, Keke drove a fantastic season that year. I was glad the title went to a real racer.

[fines]

You can draw whatever conclusions you like, but you've got a few facts wrong:

Originally posted by RedFever
Did you actually follow the race and all the team orders? after Rene retired, Ferrari first posted "Keep 1-2". Later, when it was obvious Pironi had ignored the signs and everytime he was in the lead, the lap times would accelerate by as much as 2 seconds per lap, eventually the team exposed the "Slow" sign.

Arnoux retired on lap 45, and Pironi took the lead one lap later. After yet another lap (or two), the Ferrari pit showed the first "SLOW" sign, not "Keep 1-2" or somesuch. Pironi was leading then. If "SLOW" meant "keep positions", then Villeneuve broke the agreement. However, both Villeneuve and Pironi denied this.

Originally posted by RedFever
You can slice it as you want, but you are ignoring that the drivers at Ferrari back then had a gentleman agreement similar to DC and MH at McLaren couple of years ago. Who was ahead, kept the position, unless there was a mechanical problem.

Villeneuve's position was, that the leader at half-distance was entitled to win. Pironi said, that the two Renault drivers and the two Ferrari drivers had an agreement to put a show on for the first half of the race, and then fight it out in the second half - against the team's wishes!

Originally posted by RedFever
That was to avoid stupid accidents among teammates. Gilles had accepted losing a WDC in 1979 to respect this pact (twice he got on to Jody's side in Monza in 79, when Jody was going quite slow and twice, after Jody reassured him he had no problems with his car, Gilles slowed and followed his teammate again).

Villeneuve didn't lose the 1979 WDC at Monza, he was way behind in points prior to this. The agreement worked both ways: Villeneuve profited in South Africa and Long Beach, Scheckter in Monaco and Italy. And don't tell me Villeneuve was a close second while Scheckter wasn't - Jody knew there's no difference between winning by 1 second or by one minute. He was driving for results, while Villeneuve drove for the paying public - the Canadian will always be loved for this, while the South African will always be World Champion. I think they both chose.

Originally posted by RedFever
Gilles simply didn't expect Dider would break this agreement and betray his word for a win. Gilles had been very supportive of the French in his first year at Ferrari and he considered him a friend. There is no doubt that Gilles and everyone at Ferrari considered the race over when Rene retired. Unfortunately, Piccinini was not Montezemolo and he failed to strongly communicate to Didier the team's intention. But that is besides the point, Gilles was distressed more by the betrayal than by losing a race. It is how the race was stolen from him that drove him insane, not losing one race.

Everybody at Ferrari except Villeneuve and Enzo Ferrari (who wasn't present) agreed that there was no agreement, and so there was no agreement broken. I don't believe that Gilles made that up, but that he was genuinely mistaken. He believed in an unspoken agreement (which would come into effect after both the Renaults had retired), which was obviously never relayed to Pironi. You can't expect a person to abide by an agreement that he has never heard of!

Originally posted by RedFever
As the team showed clearly in the past 5 years, battles among teammate are not highly regarded there. Didier did the unexpected and I feel he pissed off the old man too. It was not a smart move to make normally and even less when one considers how much Ferrari respected Villeneuve.

Enzo Ferrari presented a plaque to Didier Pironi while he recuperated in hospital. The plaque read (from memory): "To Didier Pironi, the real World Champion of 1982" or something to that effect. He also promised to keep Pironi's seat at Ferrari. That to me doesn't sound like he was pissed off...

[Rediscoveryx]

Good post fines

RedFever:

There was a great article on Imola 82 in the "1982 issue" of MotorSport magazine last spring, where the key players (Piccinini, Forghieri, Arnoux) gave their view on the incident, and no one blamed Pironi.

[RedFever]

"Villeneuve didn't lose the 1979 WDC at Monza, he was way behind in points prior to this. The agreement worked both ways: Villeneuve profited in South Africa and Long Beach, Scheckter in Monaco and Italy. And don't tell me Villeneuve was a close second while Scheckter wasn't - Jody knew there's no difference between winning by 1 second or by one minute. He was driving for results, while Villeneuve drove for the paying public - the Canadian will always be loved for this, while the South African will always be World Champion. I think they both chose."

I disagree entirely. Gilles lost the title by 4 points. WHen they raced in Monza he could still win the title. Instead he protected Jody's back without attempting to ever pass him. That was the gentlemen agreement they hadin place at Ferrari. If Gilles would have tried and succeded (not guaranteed, but possible), the final WDC standing would be perfectly reversed.... How many drivers without a 2nd driver contract do you know that willingly give up thei chance to win the WDC to make sure the team wins???

Also, your information is entirely wrong and mileading. Check your facts first. In South Africa and Long Beach, Jody was simply not in a position to threaten Gilles wins. Gilles simply dominated both races. In Monaco, Gilles retired for a transmission problem. In Monza, he simply decided to not attack his teamate, in respect of their agreement. Jody was never faced with that choice, he simply was never close to Gilles while Gilles was leading. Your claim that the agreement worked in Gilles favor twice is absolutely false because Jody was not close to Gilles in those races. Of course, to Gilles that was irrelevant. It could have truned in his favor, it just happened it turned in Jody's favor. Such is life, Gilles had no problem with that and kept his word. Not Didier, who after being utterly dominated the entire 1981 season, saw an opportunity to come out of it and took it, regardless of the method used. After all, he was already being dominated in qual again in 1982, we can understand the psychological pressure he was undergoing....an emerging young F1 star before 81....regularly crashed once with Gilles at Ferrari.


"Everybody at Ferrari except Villeneuve and Enzo Ferrari (who wasn't present) agreed that there was no agreement, and so there was no agreement broken. I don't believe that Gilles made that up, but that he was genuinely mistaken. He believed in an unspoken agreement (which would come into effect after both the Renaults had retired), which was obviously never relayed to Pironi. You can't expect a person to abide by an agreement that he has never heard of!"

Nonsense. Ferrari not being present is irrelevant. He did not want his drivers to fight each other, particularly if there was no race left, like in Imola - Rene out, Gilles and Didier had no opposition. Gilles was not crazy like you seem to think, he didn't hear voices in his head. He had discussed the same agreement he had with Jody (no attacking each other) when Didier first joined Ferrari in 81. I clearly recall Didier speaking about it before the 81 season even started, when asked about the relationship he was developing with his new teammate. He well knew Ferrari didn't want his drivers to fight each other and he supported the agreement.


"Enzo Ferrari presented a plaque to Didier Pironi while he recuperated in hospital. The plaque read (from memory): "To Didier Pironi, the real World Champion of 1982" or something to that effect. He also promised to keep Pironi's seat at Ferrari. That to me doesn't sound like he was pissed off..."

Wow, this is taken entirely out of contest. Sorry, but I lived in Italy at the time, Ferrari there is in he news all the time. Ferrari very publicly stated Pironi took away from Gilles the win in Imola. If you missed this, please go back and read publications of the time. I read absolutely clear statements from Enzo in Autosprint, La Gazzetta dello Sport and on RAI TV in a TV interview, where Enzo stated that Imola was and should have stayed Gilles win (he said that BEFORE Zolder), that he had fought Rene all race, that at Ferrari drivers didn't fight each other, so as far as Enzo and Gilles were concerned, the race was over the moment Rene's engine expired. At that moment Gilles was leading. He immediately slowed down and Didier passed him. He also said he had talked to both drivers, particularly after Gilles had threatened to leave. He said Gilles was still upset, that he would never talk to Pironi again, but that he had agreed to stay (in fact, Gilles renewed his contract for 2 more years.....). Didier had also understood the situation and would do everything in his power to re-establish a relationship with Gilles. Ferrari smiled at the end and said time hopefully will smoothen things, as the wound heals. Unfortunately, time for Gilles was running out.......

Enzo did give the plaque to Didier because Didier indeed finished the season a handful of points behind Keke with so many less races. Morally he was the WDC and Enzo recognized this. Gilles had died after only 5 races with only 6 points. The two situations are entirely unrelated. Enzo never doubted Didier's skills or talent and was very happy with Didier's performance after Gilles died. Also, Didier took the team's responsibility on his shoulder, not an easy thing to do when a driver is killed. All that was recognized duly. But after Imola, Enzo was pissed with Didier and clearly said Didier should have not passed Gilles. That simple.


"There was a great article on Imola 82 in the "1982 issue" of MotorSport magazine last spring, where the key players (Piccinini, Forghieri, Arnoux) gave their view on the incident, and no one blamed Pironi."


cough....cough....cough....... Rene was in no position to judge what was going on within the Ferrari team. Piccinini was the one that screwed up the entire situation, being spineless enough to not post a sign that clearly said "Gilles 1, Didier 2" or viceversa. "Slow" means nothing. He did (contrary to what posted above) show the sign "Keep P1-P2" twice, when Gilles was leading, but as Didier smartly remarked after the race, they DID keep P1-P2, regardless of the actual order...... In a way, this incident clarifies the importance of people like Todt in a team. If instead of an inept like Piccinini someone like Jean Todt was managing the situation, clarity would have been established. Didier could have still chosen to ignore the team order (like Reutemann and Regazzoni did with Frank), but at least people would stop inferring Gilles fantasized about an agreement everyone knew existed at Ferrari.......

[Tim Murray]

Originally posted by fines
Villeneuve didn't lose the 1979 WDC at Monza, he was way behind in points prior to this.

If Villeneuve had finished ahead of Scheckter at Monza, wih all other race results unchanged, then he would have been champion by two points (50 to 48). Presumably, though, if this had happened Scheckter might have tried a bit harder in the last two races.

[RedFever]

From Autosprint's original 1982 interviews:

"Quando Arnoux s'è fermato ho rallentato perché la battaglia era finita. Non avrei mai creduto che lui mi attaccasse, eravamo al limite della benzina e il cartello del box, 'slow', mi aveva fatto capire che non era il caso di fare pazzie. Pironi mi ha anche toccato due volte, ha preferito fare di testa sua. Vuol dire che prima avevo un compagno di squadra e adesso ho un avversario in più"

Translation:
"When Arnoux stopped, I immediately slowed down because the fight was over. I never even considered he would attack me, besides we were at the limit with the fuel and the pit crew had already showed us the "slow" sign, indicating we had to avoid being crazy. Pironi even touched me twice, he preferred to do his own thing. Well, it simply means I used to have a teamate and now I have one more opponent".

"Con Didier la questione è sempre aperta, perche' con lui c'era un accordo. Ha cercato di venire anche qui in Belgio a parlarmi, voleva spiegarmi perche' mi ha superato, ma per adesso non credo di volerlo sentire. Piccinini dice che faccio male, ma io l'ho detto anche a Ferrari, sono veramente arrabbiato con Didier. Loro mi dicono "Vincerai ancora". Cosa c'entra? a Imola ho perso una corsa che avevo vinto, e questo non c'è niente che possa cambiarlo. In questo mestiere non si può sempre stare ad aspettare domani, bisogna pensare sempre all'oggi"

With Didier the situation is still unresolved, because I had an agreement with him. He tried to talk to me also here in Belgium, he wanted to explain why he passed me, but for now I don't want to talk to him (important to notice he said "for now", I didn't recall this, I guess he maybe left the door open for a later peaceful resolution, if Didier had a good explanation). Piccinini says it is not good I don't talk to him, but I already told this to Ferrari, I am truly angry with Didier. They tell me "you will win more". What does this have to do with it? in Imola I lost a race I had won and nothing can change that. In this career you cannot always wait for tomorrow (I guess a reference to the 2 dreadful years spent driving a T5 and a 126C, truly horrible cars), you always have to think about today (eerie, considering he died the day after....)


From GranPrix.com - supplier of the motorsport database to the FIA:

"At Imola he was leading until the last lap when his Ferrari team mate Didier Pironi, who was under team orders not to overtake, ignored the instruction and snatched the victory. Villeneuve was furious."

From F1-Granprix.com

"the Ferrari 126C2 turbos were running 1-2, with Villeneuve leading from Didier Pironi, when the team ordered the drivers to slow to conserve fuel. Yet Pironi passed Villeneuve before the Tosa hairpin with 1/2 lap remaining and took the win, causing Villeneuve — who said "I was cruising along so easily and believed that Pironi was being honest until he slid past me with all wheels locked" — to vow he would never speak to his team mate again.

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by fines
You can draw whatever conclusions you like, but you've got a few facts wrong:

Arnoux retired on lap 45, and Pironi took the lead one lap later. After yet another lap (or two), the Ferrari pit showed the first "SLOW" sign, not "Keep 1-2" or somesuch. Pironi was leading then. If "SLOW" meant "keep positions", then Villeneuve broke the agreement. However, both Villeneuve and Pironi denied this.

This is Forix' race chart:
http://www.forix.com...&l=0&r=8204&c=7

I didn't see this GP live but it looks they were racing each other till the moment Arnoux retired. At that moment Gilles was ahead. About a lap later he suddenly slows, Pironi passes and accelerates. Gilles follows and repasses, then slows again (after lap 49). A few laps later Pironi repasses and accelerates again, Gilles catches him (penultimate lap), slows again, Didier takes his chance in the last lap.

I get the impression -as Gilles is quite able to counter Didier's acceleration each time- that every timeVilleneuve slows down, this was on purpose - and it is likely that this was after being shown the sign from the pits.
I think however, that a Piquet or Lauda (just to name some contemporary drivers) never would given Pironi the chance to catch up and pass in the final lap, "Slow" sign or not....

[scheivlak]

Having a closer look: It looks like that Gilles got the lead in the penultimate lap because Didier slowed down! So at that moment he must have thought that Pironi finally got the message from the pits...
It's strange that Didier slowed down on lap 59, let his teammate pass and then retook the lead on the last lap!
It makes it even more regrettable that they didn't speak to each other since then - was Pironi's explanation (not his general idea of the situation which is known, but their behaviour during the last few laps) ever published?

[JacnGille]

Originally posted by Tim Murray


If Villeneuve had finished ahead of Scheckter at Monza, wih all other race results unchanged, then he would have been champion by two points (50 to 48). Presumably, though, if this had happened Scheckter might have tried a bit harder in the last two races.

As Redfever pointed out, there was an agreement that whomever was ahead on points after Monaco would be supported by the lesser. Gilles gearbox failure ensured Jody's points advantage. Gilles honored the agreement at Monza.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by scheivlak
It's strange that Didier slowed down on lap 59, let his teammate pass and then retook the lead on the last lap!

From Nigel Roebuck's famous Autosport article (quoting Gilles):

"Then, on lap 59, I passed him again on the approach to Tosa. I thought he lifted a little, but he says he had a small engine problem. Whatever it was, I got by, and even at that stage I thought he was being honest. He was obeying the original pit signal. He'd left it late, but never mind. I led that lap, having slowed down yet again...he let me by on lap 59 because he wanted to draft me at the same place on lap 60. And I was stupid enough to believe he was just being honourable."

Roebuck published the leader lap times for the last 15 laps; when Villeneuve was in the lead, the leader's time was in the 1'37"s or above (with 1 exception), but when Pironi was leading the times were in the 1'35"s (apart from lap 46 and the very last lap which were in the low 1'36"s).

[Jordi #99]

It's sad that Pironi is remembered by Imola 1982 than anything else...

Maybe the best would have been painting both cars in different liveries, maybe they would have just raced cleanly but hard, like Gilles and Arnoux at Dijon 1979. To me it was just a big misunderstanding.

As it has been said, Pironi had been in F1 before Imola, so why not focus on that too? He was a Ligier and Tyrrell driver, right? He won one race in 1980, didn't he?

[man]

I agree with Fines.

For me, the way how Didier has been treated since the death of Gilles has been sickening. Much of the hysteria has come about due to Nigel Roebuck's constant mocking of Didier.

The fact of the matter is that Gilles was treated like a son by Enzo, so why did the old man state that a seat would always be waiting for Didier at Ferrari after Hockenheim?

There was clearly a misunderstanding at Imola but I don't believe Didier passed Gilles knowing he was supposed to remain in P2.

Regarding Didier Pironi the driver, I have always thought he was highly underrated. He could be as smooth as Prost when need be and he could also take a car by the scruff of the neck. No doubt, he was in the shadow of Gilles but who wouldn't have been as his teammate in 1981 and 1982? At the time, other than Gilles, I couldn't name a better driver.

The start of Imola 1981 and the opening lap of Monza is how I remember Didier.

[David M. Kane]

In Nigel's defense he did something NONE of us, to the best of my knowledge
did, he ACTUALLY was present at all of these races, observed all of these races LIVE and actually talked on a frequent basis to ALL of the participants! I only saw him race live twice and only actually talked to him once. I was NOT impressed, BUT I don't understand French people/drivers
and they clearly don't understand me an American fan. So I tend to mirror
the vibes I am receiving. I had a similar feeling when I talked to Alain
Prost, i.e. about his Monaco crash in Renault, he tried to tell me it
was a mechanical failure! PLEASE!!!!

Didier was EXTREMELY cunning and EXTREMELY manipulative and EXTREMELY political. Didier NEVER did anything EVER that wasn't absolutely to his
benefit. That was, that is the very nature and soul of 99% of ALL F1, its
their pyschological profile.

Lastly, Ferrari ALWAYS played ALL of his drivers for ALL TIME against one
and another.

[skinnylizard]

the truth we can never be sure of. We have to listen to people who were there...and then too we are left confused by peoples motivations
I though find Nigel Roebucks view to be satisfying and honest considering his presence and access to GV and the Ferrari team.
I dont know what Pironi was thinking when he did what he did.. i mean regardless of how you justify it to yourself it makes no sense...because the people will know..we arent stupid..no one wants to see someone steal a win..and we have seen that happen even now...so it just makes no sense to me that some one would want to openly rip their team-mate of like that
i think GV was just the wrong kinda personality..he was more or less a throw back to the olden days...
i think his talent was the last thing people noticed..i mean people loved him coz he fought tooth and nail and never gave up. he took the chances and ACTUALLY drove for the people...(unlike Eddie Jordan saying how his team is the peoples team..my ****ing ass) his taking Dider in as a family member and being all around nice to him..was probably the only flaw i can see in his character..of course it wouldnt be Gilles without that would it..
i dont know much about pironi but he did screw up..and no matter how talented he was or not...it will always be secondary...coz in the end no matter what people say..a lot of us will always care about how good a sport someone is....thats why Italy will always love Gilles..and MS will become a driver who won championships for em...
I dont know if anyone has read the book Deadly Obsessions here..talks about death in F-1 and edgy lifestyle.it talked bout Didier having nightmares about Gilles....so maybe he did feel guilt..
or mabe im just an ass who dosent know what hes talkn bout...i fully entertain that possibility
Dider's widow named her twins..gilles and didier..a fitting goodbye then.
ive never seen him race live..i was 3 years old when he died.ive seen him on tapes.. ive been to the musem etc etc etc....but i still feel sad about what happened...
i guess thats why i support Jacques so much...
xxx
www.pi-media.com

[David M. Kane]

Skinny, is this book available in English? Who is the author? Thanks.

[MaTT2799]

I have only skimmed through this thread briefly, so please excuse any repetition. I thought I should add my thoughts.

It is best to mention at this point that Gilles is my all time favourite Grand Prix driver. I have endless amounts of pictures, books, models etc. However, I take what I consider (given my GV stance) to be a rather more balanced view on the subject of Didier Pironi. First thing first, one cannot deny that Didier was an exceptional talent behind the wheel of a racing car.

His personality was far more complex than Gilles. If Gilles felt something, he would tell people. He was honest, up front and friendly. Didier was more introverted, which lead many people to class him as an 'oddball' (Dr Harvey Poselthwaite included). This in turn is probably a factor in how people percieve Imola 1982.

My opinion? Gilles misunderstood the teams orders. He thought they meant for Didier to stay behind him, so he relaxed. Didier didn't win Imola 1982 to screw Gilles over, he won it because he genuinely felt that Gilles was racing him for it. Had Gilles realised that they were still racing I have no doubt in my mind that he would have won the race, he had outqualified Didier by 1.5 seconds after all.

As for which one of them would have been World Champion, who knows? You can never count luck into things, and Gilles may have gone on to have terrible reliability. Purely as speculation though, I will say that under ideal circumstances Gilles would have won it, as I believe he was a more sensitive driver, and maybe even more complete package, than Didier.

[fines]

Originally posted by scheivlak
This is Forix' race chart:
http://www.forix.com...&l=0&r=8204&c=7

This is a most interesting graph! We've seen the lap times of the closing stages quite often, but they're not that interesting - there's no dispute over what happened then, with Villeneuve slowing and Pironi accelerating. I was always more interested in the early stages of the race, because that's where their difference of opinion was founded.

You remember: After the race, Villeneuve said that they were very low on fuel, because they had battled the Renault for three-quarters of the race and lapped "at around 1'35.5" (quote from Bruce Jones, The definite/ultimate/whatever Encyclopedia of F1, and Nigel Roebuck in Autosport), so it would have been stupid to race each other.

Pironi, on the other hand, said they had plenty of fuel because there had been an agreement between the Ferrari and Renault drivers to put on a show for the spectators (because there were only 12 starters) until half-distance, and then arrange themselves in grid order to start the real race then, without any fuel worries. According to Pironi, the Ferrari team knew nothing of this, hence the "SLOW" orders.

Now check the graph: You can see that it conforms with Pironi's plot, and that the average lap time for the first half of the race had been about 1'37". Then, after a short period where they appear to organize themselves, lap times very suddenly drop about two seconds - the race is on!

It's an unfortunate fact of life, but even heroes lie sometimes! I still don't think that Villeneuve raced Pironi in the last laps (because he believed there'd be team orders), but he definitely wasn't telling the truth about that race. Probably because he was very upset, and didn't want to look stupid - whatever!

I understand that Pironi only ever talked about Imola when prompted, and then only reluctantly. Arnoux was hinting at that agreement from time to time, and Prost would never want to talk about it. That, imho, speaks volumes about the integrity of these Frenchmen, who didn't want to tarnish the reputation of a deceased legend.

It's a very popular myth that Pironi "stole" this race from Villeneuve, and as with all myths it gets perpetuated ad nauseam. Gilles is still very popular all over the world (and deservedly so!), so it's small wonder the myth lives on. But there's a tarnished reputation of another deceased racer waiting to be redressed!

[RedFever]

"I get the impression -as Gilles is quite able to counter Didier's acceleration each time- that every timeVilleneuve slows down, this was on purpose - and it is likely that this was after being shown the sign from the pits.
I think however, that a Piquet or Lauda (just to name some contemporary drivers) never would given Pironi the chance to catch up and pass in the final lap, "Slow" sign or not.... "


Absolutely, the way the race developed shows that Gilles was at the very least as fast as Pironi. However, after he would pass Didier, he would obey the initial team order to slow, while when Didier was in front, they would lap almost two seconds faster because of Didier. It is true that Lauda or Piquet would have won the race instead of Gilles because they were both cunning. That was Gilles, a truly honest straightforward guy, to some too simple. He didn't expetc his teammate to rob him, that simple.


"To me it was just a big misunderstanding.
As it has been said, Pironi had been in F1 before Imola, so why not focus on that too? He was a Ligier and Tyrrell driver, right? He won one race in 1980, didn't he?"

Sorry, but I feel this post makes zero sense and it is even more offensive to Didier's memory, you paint him as an idiot. There was no missunderstanding, Didier was one of the most talented drivers in the world, for Pete's sake (and that is the psychological cause of his behavior that day). A driver of his level figures it quite easily whether is opponent is driving at the limit or not. Didier knew that when he was leading, they were flying and he knew that Gilles kept his pace with extreme ease, in fact would pass Didier again and again. However, Didier also noticed that as soon as Gilles passed him, they would suddenly slow. He could tell Gilles had no problems, not only he was right behing him, but he knew Gilles was capable of keeping whatever pace Didier set when leading. Didier was a very intelligent guy, he was not the stereotypical driver who grew up in an officine working on cares while racing. He was a welthy Parisian who grew up with an education and a broeader view of the world. He had always achieved what he wanted and in F1 his career was very successful and he was viewed as future world champ material. That is, until he was paired with the little Canadian. In 1981, Didier was extremely fustrated and also humiliated (never a good feeling for anyone, imagine for an F1 star), if the car was a disaster, well, not his fault, but the fact his teammate was always ahead of him and even winning with a car he could not come to terms with, pretty much sealed it. It meant quite publicly that no matter how good Didier was, someone was always going to be a lot better. In Imola, although destroyed in qual again by Gilles, Didier saw onlyone obstacle between him and his first win with a Ferrari: his teamate. He decided to win at all costs. This is a decision he made while in the race, with so many factors involved. When victory and psychology mix and you are racing and have to make a decision, not always you make the best one, like Schumacher and Senna have proved as well. Pironi needed to win for himself, needed to win to feel an F1 driver again, to feel he could still counter Gilles or anyone else. It is a human feeling, I guess and he was willing to sacrifice a friendship over it (or he underestimated Gilles' reaction, he felt he could later explain it to him). But please, let not become ridiculous and state that one of the best F1 drivers of that era didn't understand his teamate would slow 2 seconds per lap when leading because he wasn't racing him. It offends Didier's intelligence and ours.


"To me it was just a big misunderstanding.

As it has been said, Pironi had been in F1 before Imola, so why not focus on that too? He was a Ligier and Tyrrell driver, right? He won one race in 1980, didn't he?"

I think I explained why the missunderstanding theory is not credible. Didier was smart enought to see Gilles would dramatically slow and the pits asked to slow. He didn't. It is not a missunderstanding.

He was in F1 before Imola and I always liked Didier. I always understood why he did why he did. I don't condone it, but I understand it. I am sure even Gilles in a few months would have accepted the apology (of course, would have never fallen for more tricks...). Didier had to heal a seriously hurt ego and took the opportunity when he saw one. But he did race very well with Tyrrell and Ligier and raced very well the few more races after Zolder, so much so he would have won the WDC had he raced one or two more GPs. The reason people focus so much on Imola is because both Gilles and Didier stopped racing within a few months. Had Didier survived and won the WDC and gone on racing 4-5 more seasons, Imola would be no more than Jerez in Schumi's career, a black page in an otherwise successful run. Unfortunately, Didier ened his career too near to the Imola affair. Bad timing more than anything else. He didn't have time to clean up the air.

"The fact of the matter is that Gilles was treated like a son by Enzo, so why did the old man state that a seat would always be waiting for Didier at Ferrari after Hockenheim?"

This had zero correlation with the Gilles incident, please don't force one issue to make your theory look realistic. Enzo told very publicly on TV in Italy that the win of Imola belonged to Gilles. He took Gilles side because he knew of the agreement.

It is however undeniable that Didier took very successfully the weight of his team on his shoulders once Gilles died. Every team gets traumatized by such an event, but when someone like Gilles died (his mechanics and team management - Piccinini aside - also loved Gilles), it makes everything harder. Didier was instrumental in turning things around and helping the team to refocus on their tasks and on winning. Enzo recognized that. Didier also socred enough points to arrive 2nd with 1/3 of the season missed. Because Didier really proved his worth as a driver once Gilles was gone, Enzo recognized this and showed hs appreciation to Didier (let's not forget that everyone, including Enzo and Didier knew from day one that Didier would never be able to race in F1. He was lucky they didn't amputate his legs, they were destroyed. Promising a seat was more of respectful thing to do, not a realistic one).

"He could be as smooth as Prost when need be and he could also take a car by the scruff of the neck. No doubt, he was in the shadow of Gilles but who wouldn't have been as his teammate in 1981 and 1982? At the time, other than Gilles, I couldn't name a better driver."

well, there was Prost starting to get noticed, butyes, Didier could have easily be considered the best choice after Gilles. And it was that expectation and the failure of 1981 that probably pushed Didier over the edge in Imola. He was known to "take a car by the scruff" but the 126C had been too much to handle. Not for Gilles, who somehow at times managed to bring in ahead. I don't know of anyone else who would have done better than Didier back then, but I guess he felt diferently knowing one other guy did manage it. I think Didier was faced in 1981 with discorvering his limit, which is always a hard thing to do for a driver. It is very hard when you realize your limit is exceeded even by one other guy. Didier was very competitive and had a hard time accepting what everyone else had accepted, that Gilles was the best talent of his era. Unfortunately, racing in the same team makes it very different.


David Kane
"Didier was EXTREMELY cunning and EXTREMELY manipulative and EXTREMELY political. Didier NEVER did anything EVER that wasn't absolutely to his
benefit. That was, that is the very nature and soul of 99% of ALL F1, its
their pyschological profile."

David - I am happy to notice there is at least one more person who knew about Didier's personality outside of the cockpit. Didier was a very sophisticated, brilliant, educated rich Parisians who knew his way in the world. I don't want to use extreme words, because after all I loved Didier as a driver, but I find it laughable when people suggest Didier had no clue of what he was doing in Imola. He knew Gilles was slowing, he knew Gilles didn't expect his final blow, he didn't pass Gilles for a while because he understood all that and waited for the last opportunity knowing Gilles would be left without a chance to pas him back. That is cunning and well planned. And I feel that while Didier regretted doing this later, he sure would feel his intelligence is offended by suggetsing he didn't realize what was going on.

"his taking Dider in as a family member and being all around nice to him..was probably the only flaw i can see in his character..of course it wouldnt be Gilles without that would it.."

That is why Gilles was so furious. He treated Didier as he had treated Jody, as a personal friend. Gilles just didn't see this coming from someone he considered part of his extended family. Of course, Didier would have never been able to fool him again, had they continued to race in F1.....

"lot of us will always care about how good a sport someone is....thats why Italy will always love Gilles..and MS will become a driver who won championships for em..."

Schumacher won 3 WDC for Ferrari and is the most successful Ferrari driver ever. Yet, Schumacher's acceptance and following in Italy never got even close to the hights of Gilles following. People wanted not only wins, they wanted someone who was real, honest, who would win only based on merit. Didier's cunning tactics in Imola or Schumi races in Jerez and Australia are not perceived as the stuff of "heros". Gilles was a hero for Italian racing fans, Schumi is winner, not a hero.

"it talked bout Didier having nightmares about Gilles....so maybe he did feel guilt..
or mabe im just an ass who dosent know what hes talkn bout..."

Of course Didier regretted his actions and for as long as he lived, because of what happened in Zolder. Even if Zolder is only Mass and Gilles fault, Didier always felt he was partially at fault (why would Gilles in normal conditions try an etra flying lap on wornout tires???). He also probably realized he was labeled a villan after Imola, not something he had considered. To me Imola will always be the result of a huge frustration that boiled inside Didier for over a year, it was NEVER a calculated event, he didn't think about it before the race, it just happened instinctively just like when Schumi decided to hit Villeneuve and unlike Senna premeditated punt on Prost. He saw an unexpected chance to regain confidence, his ego desperately needed it and he his ego decided to walk over Gilles to get its fix. It is human. Didier sure paid a huge prize for his mistake.


"Didier didn't win Imola 1982 to screw Gilles over, he won it because he genuinely felt that Gilles was racing him for it. Had Gilles realised that they were still racing I have no doubt in my mind that he would have won the race, he had outqualified Didier by 1.5 seconds after all."

I agree Didier didn't win in Imola to screw Gilles, but you are not being realistic by suggesting he genuinely felt Gilles was racing for it. The huge difference in speed between the laps when Gilles led and Didier led are a clear indications of who was racing and who wasn't. Didier was too good of an F1 driver to not notice that. Also, the fact he didn't pass Gilles for a while, until he knew Gilles would be surprised with no more laps to pass him, is evidence he knew Gilles wouldn't expect another move on the last chance. Had Gilles been really racing Didier, he would have not been caught so unprepared and with such an open door. I mean, this is the guy who had won Jarama with 4 dogs in his ass.......

[man]

Originally posted by RedFever
In 1981, Didier was extremely fustrated and also humiliated (never a good feeling for anyone, imagine for an F1 star).....

Didier was very competitive and had a hard time accepting what everyone else had accepted, that Gilles was the best talent of his era.

Can I ask what do you base these statements on?

[Rediscoveryx]

Originally posted by RedFever
[B]I agree Didier didn't win in Imola to screw Gilles, but you are not being realistic by suggesting he genuinely felt Gilles was racing for it. The huge difference in speed between the laps when Gilles led and Didier led are a clear indications of who was racing and who wasn't. Didier was too good of an F1 driver to not notice that.

Perhaps Didier noticed that, but perhaps he didn't see it as "well the guy in front of me is driving slower than he's able to do, so that means I'm not allowed to pass...". He knew that neither Ferraridriver was in any worries about fuel, he knew that Gilles had been the first to make a genuine overtaking manouver after the "SLOW" signs were put out. If it was OK for Gilles to pass him, why shouldn't it be ok for Didier to do the same?

Also, the fact he didn't pass Gilles for a while, until he knew Gilles would be surprised with no more laps to pass him, is evidence he knew Gilles wouldn't expect another move on the last chance. Had Gilles been really racing Didier, he would have not been caught so unprepared and with such an open door.

Look at the lap charts; it was Gilles who didn't pass Didier for a while, until he knew that Didier would be surprised when Gilles passed him on the penultimate lap. Didier then "returned the favour" on the final lap to win.

[RedFever]

"Can I ask what do you base these statements on?"

On the fact that any F1 driver with any ambition (and young Pironi DEFINETLY belonged to this group) would feel at the very least very frustrated when your teammate had over 1/2 second on you in qual and won 2 races with a car you barely got 4th. If he didn't feel frustrated and uneasy, F1 would have been the wrong place for him. Nothing hurts a driver more than being beaten by his teamate. There's no hiding, the cars are the same.

PS. I base it on articles that appeared in 1982. I have them in Italy and can't dig them out now. But several journalists who had Didier's confidence pointed out to Didier's frustration as the cause for his behavior in Imola. Of course, you are free to either disagree or not believe me, it isn't really that important to me, after all.

[RedFever]

"he knew that Gilles had been the first to make a genuine overtaking manouver after the "SLOW" signs were put out."

You keep saying that but it is wrong. Didier was 2nd when they first exposed the slow sign. It was confirmed also by Gilles and Didier never denied it, he simply said that SLOW didn't mean for him "don't pass". He never denied he saw the sign. Please stop changing things around.

From F1-Granprix.com
"the Ferrari 126C2 turbos were running 1-2, with Villeneuve leading from Didier Pironi, when the team ordered the drivers to slow to conserve fuel."

I have already posted several sources confirming my version of the facts. Instead you simply defend Pironi without any evidence. Show facts on which you base your theories.

[David M. Kane]

RedFever, I must agree with you that few of us have ever done anything, particularly in a sport contest that we haven't regretted later. Face it
things happens very quickly and most times with a lot of passion. I've played sports my whole life and I have raced cars off and on for thirty
years. Things happen very quickly, your energy and focus are on the event
and little else; AND yes, there is that ego thing! I wish I had a dollar
for everytime I did something stupid because my ego drove me to do it.

I agree we need to cut Didier just a little slack on this.

I agree the team manager at the time was NOT a good one, and yes, he was
weak and too political.

After sleeping on this story for a coupla nights now, I'm NOT sure I wouldn't have said to myself, "screw this, I'm going for it, I can win
this race and I'm tired of all this jerking around." I think the temptation
would have gotten to me too. That is my introspective conclusion for what
it is worth.

[RedFever]

"I agree the team manager at the time was NOT a good one, and yes, he was
weak and too political."

Piccinini was embarassing. Certainly Montezemolo had left a void to huge to fill, but this guy was not even good enough to be the team manager of Merzario, let alone Ferrari. In fact, during his tenure at Ferrari, the Italian press regularly utilized him as the target of its satire and humor. A lot more than, say, Pollock as team manager of BAR or Rahal as #1 at Jaguar. He mishandled the situation during the race (he could have solved it by showing a sign "Gilles 1 - Didier 2", which would have been very clear). He also mishandled the situation after the race, and in perfect political fashion, he didn't take Gilles' side and he didn't take Didier's side. He simply avoided judgements, when it is obvious that the team had sent some orders to the drivers and one of them had disobeyed. It took Ferrari, finally, after a week of chaos and resentments, to finally clarify the team's position on the events. Ferrari was the first to confirm that in fact the team requested the drivers to slow once Rene retired and Gilles was ahead. Once Didier passed and Gilles later passed back, the team failed to get the situation under control and tell the one driver they thought should arrive 2nd to slow.


I agree, we all regret things we do when those things happened under pressure or the intensity of a sport. I recall playing soccer competitively as a teen and this bully forwad playing in the opposing team.....we had played against each other already and he was always pushing, faking faults to get me in trouble with the referee and would also spit on me. Once I saw him again as the guy I had to follow (I played defense), I promised to myself to be hard but fair, as my usual, unless he would start to break the rules or try to get me expelled. After 15 minutes, as I too the ball from him, he tackles me from behind, hitting my heel with the metal cones under his shoes. He didn't apologize and a few minutes later, when I told him he did it on purpose, he spit on my face. ABout 10 minutes later ,he was running toward me with the ball, but he allowed the ball to get too far from him. In a last second attempt to get to the ball before me, he started a slide toward the ball. I reacted by placing one leg firm against the ground and the other straight and tense toward his sliding leg. I decided that in a millisecond, as I saw him coming. I knew I had a 10% chance of hurting myself and I knew he would have a much bigger chance of hurting himself. It was my ego or subconscious brain taking charge and asking for revenge. I wanted to see him too rolling on the floor, just as I did 10 minutes earlier. Little I knew that the angle of impact was so favorable to me that as soon as our legs made contact, the ball flew up in the air and his leg, near the ankle, broke in 7 parts!!!! I can stil lhear the noise his leg made some 20 years later. I recall feeling amazed that I didn't even feel any pressure on my body (just a little scratch) and then watching his foot pointing outward in a strange way. I knew his leg was busted. I felt really bad since the moment I realized what happened. I didn't want to hurt him that badly, but I had made in a split the decision to revenge his earlier villany. As it turned out, I got more than I bargained for and I felt guilty for a long time. Am I a villain that goes around braking people's legs? no, I never get into physical confrontations innormal life. But playing soccer, I did. It was the competition, the adrenaline, the motivation, etc. So, like Maradona stole it from England by using a hand, Pironi stole it from Gilles by passing him when unexpected. It is never justified, but it can be understood.

[Jordi #99]

Sorry, but I feel this post makes zero sense and it is even more offensive to Didier's memory, you paint him as an idiot.

No way! I just believe that Didier's career is not formed by one single race. I'd like to know his career pre-Imola 82, too... It's obvious that Imola 82 marked his career, but there are more races.

[David M. Kane]

RedFever that is a great soccer story. Sounds like that guy pushed you to
the limit and that he bought it on himself. I had a similar incident in
American football when I broke a guy's shoulder after he tried to take out
my knee. I, however, did not feel guilty, he played unfairly and he cross the line.

I think that is why sometimes it is called an "act of passion"!

Thank you for the details on the Ferrari manager, I understand better now
what I read in the atmosphere in the Ferrari pits when I saw them during
his tenure at the USGP at Watkins Glen.

[MaTT2799]

I think perhaps Didiers problem is that people considered him to be so cold and calculating that they didn't think he was capeable of an 'act of passion' behind the wheel. People just assumed that Didier had it planned right from the moment the Slow board was shown.

[mp4]

Didier Pironi was a selfish bastard who, ultimately, got what he deserved.
I cried no tears when I heard of his passing.
He can rot in Hell for being the asshole he was.
So there.

[mikedeering]

One thing that I never understood.

Gilles claimed after Imola 82 that he felt Didier let him through on the penultimate lap just so he could then slipstream back past on the final lap, at which point Gilles would have no opportunity to comback at him - which paints Didier as being calculating in the extreme.

I can't believe that - if Pironi thought they were actually racing it would be extremely risky to give up the lead - he had no idea that Gilles would yield so easily on the last lap. If I was racing someone and leading, I would not let them through just so I had an opportunity to repass - that makes no sense. Using these tactics, Pironi could have thrown the race win away - it was only that Gilles was cruising into the last lap and Pironi took a late lunge apporaching Tosa that he was able to repass.

[ensign14]

Stopped Gilles from doing the last lap slingshot tho'...

I cannot believe Didier thought he and Gilles were racing, as he must have been aware that they were going slower when Gilles was leading. Also, was it not reported that there was very little fuel left in the Ferraris? They must have been concerned about fuel consumption before the race.

[Rediscoveryx]

Originally posted by RedFever
"he knew that Gilles had been the first to make a genuine overtaking manouver after the "SLOW" signs were put out."

You keep saying that but it is wrong. Didier was 2nd when they first exposed the slow sign. It was confirmed also by Gilles and Didier never denied it, he simply said that SLOW didn't mean for him "don't pass". He never denied he saw the sign. Please stop changing things around.

From F1-Granprix.com
"the Ferrari 126C2 turbos were running 1-2, with Villeneuve leading from Didier Pironi, when the team ordered the drivers to slow to conserve fuel."

I have already posted several sources confirming my version of the facts. Instead you simply defend Pironi without any evidence. Show facts on which you base your theories.

This is what Pironi said (in a quote from the February 2002 issue of MotorSport magazine) :

"When I passed Villeneuve for the first time [after leader Arnoux had retired] it was because he had made a mistake and gone off the circuit. The first "SLOW" sign we got was a few laps after that, and I was leading."

Villeneuve claims that the sign was put out before he made his mistake.

Either way; the first driver to make a genuine overtaking manouver on his teammate after the teamorders was Villeneuve (remember that Gilles himself never blamed Pironi for overtaking him when he made his mistake).

Piccinini's words:

"We know exactly what happened, but it doesn't correspond with the general belief. It was a genuine misunderstanding triggered by Gilles making a mistake. He went off the circuit slightly and Didier passed. The "SLOW" sign may have come before or after that - I can't recall after 20 years."

Forghieri's words:

"I wish I could have been there to manage the situation in a more clear and right way, such as a sign that read "GV 1 - DP 2" rather than simply "SLOW".


BTW, I have never claimed that Didier didn't see the sign, I'm just saying that since he was overtaken by Gilles, then why should he not be allowed to do the same thing, since the sign didn't tell the drivers not to pass each other, or that Villeneuve was supposed to win. There is also a bit of a disagreement between Gilles and Didier about when the sign was put out, and no one in the Ferrari management seems to know exactly when it was put out. It's possible that the sign was put out on the lap prior to Villeneuve's excursion (as Villeneuve claims), but that Pironi simply didn't see it until the next lap, when he was leading...

[David M. Kane]

The more I read, the more I see this situation as NOT an Alan Jones/Carlos
Reutemann situation but rather simply a Team Manager who was, well NOT
a Team Manager, a wet noodle. Piccinini was the main problem for sure.

[RedFever]

Rediscoverix, I like your passion, but boy you are limited in your way of looking at this.

You are using a very limited source with an obvious interest, Pironi and Piccinini. Didier had the interest of denying he was a calculating person who would walk over a friendship for a win. Piccinini still has a hard time today to admit he caused the entire mess because of his utter incompetence. He can't recall after 20 years??? laughable, one of the most famous F1 drivers died as a result of his screwup. Of course he remembers, he just won't say it was my fault. Duh!!!!

Already Forghieri, and it seems you missed it, tells it as it is:

"I wish I could have been there to manage the situation in a more clear and right way, such as a sign that read "GV 1 - DP 2" rather than simply "SLOW".

Why GV1 and DP2???? because THAT was the intended message which Didier decided to ignore. Because THAT was the agreement between Didier and Gilles. Because THAT is what Gilles expected would be honored. The rest is bullshit.


"There is also a bit of a disagreement between Gilles and Didier about when the sign was put out, and no one in the Ferrari management seems to know exactly when it was put out. It's possible that the sign was put out on the lap prior to Villeneuve's excursion (as Villeneuve claims), but that Pironi simply didn't see it until the next lap, when he was leading..."

Laughable. As the devil's advocate you are doing a great job, too bad you forgot that besides Ferrari's management (Piccinini) and Pironi, in Imola on the straightaway there were thousands of fans and maybe more than a hundred journalists that saw EXACTLY what happened. Every newspaper in Italy, from La Gazzetta to Il Corriere della Sera to sport magazines like Autosprint, ALL were in agreement that the signs appeared immediately and that Gilles was in the lead. For you to come back some 20 years later and try to change what happened and using as evidence the defender's statements and a "I don't recall" from the moral responsible of the mess, sorry, but it's kind of disgraceful. As I mentioned, I never felt Didier was a bastard or anything, but simply let's give him responsibility for his actions. He stole a win from Gilles and that's all there is to it. I am sure he didn't expect Gilles to take it so personally. He probably didn't have the time while racing to think that to Gilles it was more than stealing a race, it was trashing his trust and friendship. Or maybe sometimes when we want something so badly, our brain forces us to ignore what the consequences will be, we just want it so badly. Either way, there were 100,000+ people in Imola that day (me included) and they all saw what happened.

[fines]

Originally posted by RedFever
You are using a very limited source with an obvious interest

Originally posted by RedFever
Or maybe sometimes when we want something so badly, our brain forces us to ignore what the consequences will be, we just want it so badly.

;)

[RedFever]

I had mentioned "Every newspaper in Italy, from La Gazzetta to Il Corriere della Sera to sport magazines like Autosprint,"

sorry you can't read....oh well....

[Rediscoveryx]

Originally posted by RedFever
Rediscoverix, I like your passion, but boy you are limited in your way of looking at this.

Since when are you the big expert? I don't like the tone you have when arguing with other posters that have a different opinion then yours.

You are using a very limited source with an obvious interest, Pironi and Piccinini.

As opposed to the unbiased views of Villeneuve and Enzo Ferrari?

Didier had the interest of denying he was a calculating person who would walk over a friendship for a win.

Perhaps. Perhaps Gilles had the interest of denying that he lost a race he should have won due to his own naivety and a misunderstanding

Already Forghieri, and it seems you missed it, tells it as it is:

I didn't miss it, I was the one who wrote it

Already Forghieri, and it seems you missed it, tells it as it is:

"I wish I could have been there to manage the situation in a more clear and right way, such as a sign that read "GV 1 - DP 2" rather than simply "SLOW".

Why GV1 and DP2???? because THAT was the intended message which Didier decided to ignore. Because THAT was the agreement between Didier and Gilles. Because THAT is what Gilles expected would be honored. The rest is bullshit.

Perhaps that was the intended message, I don't know (Piccinini himself claimed that the team didn't care who won, and that the sign was not put out to favour either driver, it was put out to guarantee the team a 1-2 finish). But the facts are that Pironi was never ordered to let Gilles win. he was never ordered to let Gilles pass him when he was leading. He was never forbidden by his team to pass his teammate. And he never passed Gilles until after he was passed himself.

"There is also a bit of a disagreement between Gilles and Didier about when the sign was put out, and no one in the Ferrari management seems to know exactly when it was put out. It's possible that the sign was put out on the lap prior to Villeneuve's excursion (as Villeneuve claims), but that Pironi simply didn't see it until the next lap, when he was leading..."

Laughable. As the devil's advocate you are doing a great job, too bad you forgot that besides Ferrari's management (Piccinini) and Pironi, in Imola on the straightaway there were thousands of fans and maybe more than a hundred journalists that saw EXACTLY what happened. Every newspaper in Italy, from La Gazzetta to Il Corriere della Sera to sport magazines like Autosprint, ALL were in agreement that the signs appeared immediately and that Gilles was in the lead. For you to come back some 20 years later and try to change what happened and using as evidence the defender's statements and a "I don't recall" from the moral responsible of the mess, sorry, but it's kind of disgraceful.

I'm not trying to change anything, I'm just quoting the men involved. I'm saying that Gilles and Didier had different opinions on when the sign was put out. Perhaps Gilles got a "SLOW" sign on his pitboard earlier than Pironi did. Perhaps Pironi didn't see the pitboard until he was in the lead. Perhaps Pironi understood that the sign was put out because the team was worried about fuel consumtion, and Didier knew that there was no problem at all because of the way the first half of the race was run so he just decided to ignore the signs.

There are a lot of other possibilities than "Didier stole Gilles win"

He stole a win from Gilles and that's all there is to it.

He stole the win from Gilles in the same sense that Rubens would have stolen Michael Schumacher's win in Austria if he had taken the chequered flag rather than slowing down in the final 100 metres.

[maxie]

When Pironi crashed at Hockenheim, although I was only 6 at that time, I had a kind of spooky and eery feeling. I thought, was it bad karma, for what he had done in Imola? God alone knows.

[Slyder]

Originally posted by mp4
Didier Pironi was a selfish bastard who, ultimately, got what he deserved.
I cried no tears when I heard of his passing.
He can rot in Hell for being the asshole he was.
So there.

That is a very narrowminded and pathetic comment. Pironi didn't have nothing to do with Gilles's death if that's what you're referring. The only one that killed Gilles was Gilles, no one else.

Sure, what happened at Imola 1982 was really bad, but to overreact and fully bash someone like this is absurd and ridiculous. Remember he's a human being too for God's sake.

Sheesh