295 replies to this topic

[B Squared]

Lutz - Thanks for the refresher, damn good thing I'm not a doctor, I'd probably be leaving a trail of bodies behind me! Shows how little I know on medical history. I guess lack of knowledge in this area wasn't confined to Italy for "Wally's" dad died from the same thing in Indiana, USA. Either way, it's a thing that obviously can't be undone.

Brian

[Ray Bell]

Warwick Brown also had the fatty embolisms after his crash in 1973...

The doctors were well aware of the problem and were able to keep him from dying. It was nothing they hadn't handled before.

[Direct Drive]

Patrese got blamed for and emotionally hurt for something that was blameless. A racing accident pure and simple. He brought an F3 ethic into F1, weaving, short breaking, all the stuff that's the norm today and he was a victim of Hunt's vitriol at Watkins Glen. He didn't deserve it.

[Ronnie792]

Perhaps this can be integrated into the correct thread 'cos I can't find it but here are the pix previously mentioned from the 1978 Italian GP at Monza, which emerged some weeks after the incident which show Patrese's Arrows well clear of Hunt's McLaren before the impact between Hunt and Peterson's Lotus which ended indirectly in poor Ronnie's death.

Here in the rear row in this shot is (left) Patrese easing the rrows back to the left across the white pit-lane demarcation line - with Hunt's McLaren already well clear of him to the centre and in fact already much closer to the rear wheel of Ronnie's Lotus (right)



This side-on shot appears to have been taken almost simultaneously from the grandstand spectator area - showing plainly that the tail of Patrese's car is just about clearing the nose of Hunt's Marlboro-McLaren with Ronnie's Lotus the black nose just visible closer on the right. If Patrese was about to clip Hunt it would have been on the extreme tip of the nose, and the lateral space between Hunt's line and Patrese's is broad, though Patrese is probably tracking right to left across Hunt's chosen path.



Another head-on view from the score tower down towards the first 'Variante'.



DCN

A little after the fact, but does anyone have copies of the photos Doug previously uploaded, since the original ones are not visible? I understand they originated in Autosprint magazine and are largely taken from the main grandstand, looking back towards the pits. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks.

[brabhamBT19]

Patrese got blamed for and emotionally hurt for something that was blameless. A racing accident pure and simple. He brought an F3 ethic into F1, weaving, short breaking, all the stuff that's the norm today and he was a victim of Hunt's vitriol at Watkins Glen. He didn't deserve it.

Wasnt it really Hunt who was responsible for accident. If we can even say there was driver responsible because it was afterall racing accident.

[kayemod]

Warwick Brown also had the fatty embolisms after his crash in 1973...

The doctors were well aware of the problem and were able to keep him from dying. It was nothing they hadn't handled before.

I think it's a rather more serious medical problem than that makes it sound. I've been there myself after suffering two shattered legs around the same time that Ronnie did, and I was told afterwards that doctors can't do much more than put patients on oxygen, and hope for the best, it really is largely a matter of luck.

[Rob]

I think it's a rather more serious medical problem than that makes it sound. I've been there myself after suffering two shattered legs around the same time that Ronnie did, and I was told afterwards that doctors can't do much more than put patients on oxygen, and hope for the best, it really is largely a matter of luck.

From what I've read, I always got the impression that by the time it was discovered, it was too late to do anything.

[kayemod]

From what I've read, I always got the impression that by the time it was discovered, it was too late to do anything.

I think that's largely correct. Ronnie's crash happened around the time I managed to get off crutches following my own very similar problems, so I've always taken a particular interest in the medical side of this one. These things are always easy with hindsight, but from what I've read, I can't see that there was anything that could have been done very differently. Shattering a femur, largest bone in the human body always carries this risk, and although I'm sure that medical knowledge has improved since 1979, like I said earlier, it really is largely a matter of luck. I was fairly lucky after 'my' embolism was detected, and poor Ronnie wasn't. Not trying to make light of a tragic incident, but our injuries had a very similar cause, we were both put in hospital by foreigners, a man from Greenland in my case, driving on the wrong side of the road.

[vashlin]

Patrese got blamed for and emotionally hurt for something that was blameless. A racing accident pure and simple. He brought an F3 ethic into F1, weaving, short breaking, all the stuff that's the norm today and he was a victim of Hunt's vitriol at Watkins Glen. He didn't deserve it.

I couldn't agree more. Below is a photo I took in the garage at Watkins Glen in '78 shortly after he was told he was NOT to be allowed to participate in that weekend's Grand Prix.




Lin

[sonar]

Fact remains that Ronnie needn't have died.
Patrese had a flying start which wasn't his fault but that of the starter, Restelli.
Vittorio Brambilla blamed himself for Ronnies death because he hit Ronnies car.
Colin Chapman blamed the Italian doctors for killing Ronnie on the operating table.
Accourding to Chapman he didn't build such safe cars just to have the Italian doctors kill of his drivers when they got hurt.

Niki Lauda blamed Restelli who then threatened Niki by saying he would sue him.
Niki replied: go ahead, I have more than 25 witnesses.

Patrese told Niki he would be more careful in the future.
Niki apparently replied by saying it was about time.

[B Squared]

Lin - thanks for sharing the poignant photo of Patrese. Always nice to see one of your all too infrequent contributions.

Brian

[Maldwyn]

Lin - thanks for sharing the poignant photo of Patrese. Always nice to see one of your all too infrequent contributions.

Brian

I agree. I've seen very little about events at Watkins Glen and Lin's photo gives a small glimpse into what must have been going on. Thanks also to David for his photo of a very solitary driver in the pit garage.

As I understand it the GPDA, led largely by Hunt and Lauda, refused to take part in the US GP if Riccardo Patrese raced. According to Alan Rees Arrows obtained a ruling allowing their driver to take part, but backed down when it was clear there was to be no compromise. The GPDA's action was apparently not solely due to events at Monza, but reflected their disapproval of a number of other incidents during the season. True or not, I do wonder why (as far as I know) no driver before or since has been dealt with by his peers in the same way.

[vashlin]

Thanks guys for the kind words about the photo.

And, yes, Michael, I've always wondered why Ricardo was the only driver (that I'm aware of) to have this experience. I'd like to think that this incident may have left such a bad taste for everyone that it was never repeated.

Lin

[Ronnie792]

In the end, there was an appalling, connected sequence of events:

1) Andretti damaged the tub of 79/3 in Austria. Whilst it was being repaired, the only T79 spare was 79/1 with the low dashboard roll-hoop, which Ronnie couldn’t fit under, so at Monza, Ronnie had 79/2 and his spare became the dusted off 78/3, with lesser frontal protection.

2) Ronnie suffered brake failure in the Sunday morning warm-up in 79/2, ploughing through 3 rows of catch fencing at the second chicane and damaging the car beyond repair, bruising his legs in the process.

3) Having to start in 78/3, Ronnie made a slow start and was caught up in a midfield pack which had benefitted from the starter dropping the flag before the rear rows had actually come to a halt. The Lotus may also have had a technical problem, since even 200m from the start, it appears to be going backwards relative to similarly powered cars.

4) The collision will always be open to conjecture. I don’t believe Patrese was guilty, since his car makes unimpeded progress, but there was undoubted contact between Hunt and Peterson, possibly resulting from both cars moving into the same space simultaneously. After failing to block Watson’s Brabham at the start, Ronnie certainly moved right just before the impact with Hunt, and it appears Hunt moved left by perhaps half a car’s width at the same time, resulting in wheels touching and spinning the Lotus into the funnel Armco. In short, probably a ‘racing accident’. I’ve seen the video from several different angles, the Swedish TV film being perhaps the clearest.

5) There was an interminable time between Ronnie being freed from his car and receiving medical help. Prof Watkins was initially prevented from attending by over-officious carabinieri. Estimates range from 11-18 minutes with regard to the time Ronnie lay on the track awaiting medical assistance. Whatever, this is unacceptable and thankfully couldn’t happen now.

6) Ronnie’s injuries were severe: according to Prof Watkins, a total of around 27 fractures over both legs and feet, the right one being worst affected. In such circumstances there can be a possibility of embolism, and sadly, this was the case. Whether or not the medical staff on hand made sufficient provision for this is open to debate, but most accident specialists now will tell you that stabilising the patient takes precedence over operating, to lower the risk of embolism.

Barbro Peterson’s suicide some 9 years later, was a tragic postscript.

Finally, according to Ronnie’s brother Tommy, Ronnie had signed a two year deal with McLaren for 1979-80, but actually intended 1979 to be his last season in F1 as he was planning his own F3 team, with Marlboro backing. Had he not perished at Monza, it is unlikely he would have ever been world champion, since 1979’s McLaren M28 was a stinker, and one which John Watson struggled with all year. Who knows, we may even have had a Peterson F1 team by now....

[kayemod]

Ronnie’s injuries were severe: according to Prof Watkins, a total of around 27 fractures over both legs and feet, the right one being worst affected. In such circumstances there can be a possibility of embolism, and sadly, this was the case. Whether or not the medical staff on hand made sufficient provision for this is open to debate, but most accident specialists now will tell you that stabilising the patient takes precedence over operating, to lower the risk of embolism.

The most effective way of dealing with injuries of this kind, is immobilisation of the affected limb(s) as soon as possible following injury, not easy when a body has to be cut out of a mangled car. Maybe the Italian medical people, maybe even the hospital, could have done things slightly differently, but other than Chapmans tirade against them, understandable in the circumstances I suppose, I haven't seen any evidence that mistakes of any kind were a direct cause of Ronnie's death. If a femur (thighbone) or pelvis are shattered, there's a high risk of a fatty embolism, I'm not a doctor, but I am speaking from personal experience here. Back in the late 70s when Ronnie (and me) suffered multiple compound fractures, there wasn't a lot, apart from immobilising the fractures that could be done, and once embolisms are detected, I was told that all that could be done was to put the patient on oxygen and hope for the best. It's a sad fact that of all accident victims who develop fat embolisms, between 5 and 15% will die, but that's today, probably things were significantly worse thirty years ago. I was lucky, and poor Ronnie wasn't, and I think that's really all there is to say on that aspect of the Monza crash. I'm just an embolism-surviving layman though, do we have a doctor in the house who can add anything useful to this particular aspect of the discussion?

Rob, (walking quite well, but with a slight limp).

Edited by kayemod, 10 July 2009 - 18:49.

[doc knutsen]

The most effective way of dealing with injuries of this kind, is immobilisation of the affected limb(s) as soon as possible following injury, not easy when a body has to be cut out of a mangled car. Maybe the Italian medical people, maybe even the hospital, could have done things slightly differently, but other than Chapmans tirade against them, understandable in the circumstances I suppose, I haven't seen any evidence that mistakes of any kind were a direct cause of Ronnie's death. If a femur (thighbone) or pelvis are shattered, there's a high risk of a fatty embolism, I'm not a doctor, but I am speaking from personal experience here. Back in the late 70s when Ronnie (and me) suffered multiple compound fractures, there wasn't a lot, apart from immobilising the fractures that could be done, and once embolisms are detected, I was told that all that could be done was to put the patient on oxygen and hope for the best. It's a sad fact that of all accident victims who develop fat embolisms, between 5 and 15% will die, but that's today, probably things were significantly worse thirty years ago. I was lucky, and poor Ronnie wasn't, and I think that's really all there is to say on that aspect of the Monza crash. I'm just an embolism-surviving layman though, do we have a doctor in the house who can add anything useful to this particular aspect of the discussion?

Rob, (walking quite well, but with a slight limp).

Fatty embolism was poorly understood in 1978, and in many ways remains so to-day. At the time of Ronnie's accident, I was in my first year of training in Surgery, and the head of Department of Orthopedics was shocked on the Sunday night, on hearing that Ronnie was undergoing surgery. His exact words were: "They are mad, he is going to die!" It should be added that the hospital in question has a lot of experience with sports injuries, including long bone fractures, from orienteering and skiing accidents. The medical procedure at the time, certainly in Scandinavia anyway, was to stabilize the patient, to give adequate shock prevention treatment and also to treat the patient with heparin and low molecular weight dextrane, in an attempt to improve capillary blood flow, prior to surgery. It was well known at the time that elective orthopedic surgery carries a minimal risk of FES, certainly compared to acute phase surgery.
However, it should be pointed out that there were, and still are, considerable differences of opinion regarding etiology, diagnosis and treatment. Sometimes, fragments of broken bone may threaten to rupture surrounding large blood vessels, and this danger may be so acute as to necessitate surgery despite the risk of FES. That is why I wrote, in a 2003 posting to rasf1 newsgroup (quoted earlier in this thread) that it is not possible to know whether Ronnie's accident, if treated differently, might have had a different outcome. (FES is more likely to occur after closed, rather than open, fractures.)

It is also correct to point out that FES may occur in certain infectious and toxic disease, it is not a complication exclusive to long bone fracture. It is not a simple mechanical blockage of blood vessels by fatty droplets, fat globules being fairly fluid and deformable. It is thought that subsequent change into more irritating fatty acids may be the actual cause of irreversible damage to other organs besides the lungs, which are where this primarily happens. I seem to remember that kidney shut-down was the official cause of death in Ronnie's case, although the condition would probably be known to-day as multi-organ failure.

I remain hopeful that the above might "add something useful to this particular aspect of the discussion", despite coming from a non-native English speaker.

[Ronnie792]

Many thanks Doc, for a thorough and lucid explanation. Exactly what we were looking for!

[Doug Nye]

After Chris Smith's leg-shattering accident in his Lotus 18 during the Goodwood Revival Meeting a few years ago somebody bawled at me for the hour-long delay which his extrication had caused. I fear I bawled back. In fact the medical team had been painstakingly manipulating his injuries to avoid all the above, while the incident marshals progressively cut away the collapsed chassis members which were trapping him. It all took time - and thanks to the care they all took the outcome was fine... Festina lente.

DCN

[TrackDog]

A few years ago, I was the victim of an accident in an auto seating factory. Somebody sat a seat frame with the bottom cushion attached down on my left hand. The one of the "feet" (the point where the frame wa to be bolted to the floor of the car) contacted the 4th finger of my left hand, nearly slicing off the tip of my finger and cracking the bone near the tip. Since I like to play piano and guitar as well as type, I was quite concerned as to the extent of my injury. I was also in a mild state of shock, and kept talking to make sure I didn't pass out in the emergency room. There was some fear that I might lose the tip of my finger; thankfully, It didn't happen. But, one of the things that kept going through my mind was what had happened to Ronnie at Monza. I asked the doctor about the possiblilty of fatty embolisms entering my bloodstream..."Sometimes that happens..." was all he would say. I got the feeling he didn't like to think about that scenario.



Dan

[tom58long]

once i read an article about james hunt. can´t exactly recall where and when but could be an article caused by his death in the week before. it contained a very small bio.

it was said that JH always felt himself responsible for the monza-incident and never was the same man again. anybody heard about that?

sometimes i think about this, but never made my mind up whether this could be true. but if, i can´t see any reason why JH was going to blame patrese so strong for something caused by himself.

[Lutz G]

A little after the fact, but does anyone have copies of the photos Doug previously uploaded, since the original ones are not visible? I understand they originated in Autosprint magazine and are largely taken from the main grandstand, looking back towards the pits. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Here they are:







Thanks for posting Doc (again)!

Lutz

[stevewf1]

Here they are:



Thanks for posting Doc (again)!

Lutz

That's an interesting photo. Patrese appears to be looking in his left mirror, can't see where Hunt is looking, but Peterson? Can't really tell, but did he simply not see Hunt at that moment?

[Ronnie792]

Lutz, many thanks for re-posting these. They certainly offer a different perspective to the 2 or 3 angles shown by the video footage. What is clear is that Patrese should not have crossed the white line, but how many true racers would not have done exactly the same, then and now? As far as I'm concerned, he is blameless. The accident appears to be a result of two cars moving into the same space at the same time (Hunt and Peterson) in a fraction of a second. A pure racing incident, not helped by the topography of the track or the efforts of the starter.

A 21-year old Michele Alboreto hung with Ronnie the day before and stated in '82 - "...I could tell he wasn't happy. Perhaps he was having problems at home but he wasn't his usual self. I saw the accident and I remember feeling awful but it never occured to me that he could die from it..."

I understand there was some tension in the Peterson household regarding Ronnie's future in Formula 1, with the compromise being a switch to McLaren and the likelihood being that 1979 would be his last season. Ronnie already had plans in place to begin his own Formula 3 team, backed by Marlboro.

[doc knutsen]

After Chris Smith's leg-shattering accident in his Lotus 18 during the Goodwood Revival Meeting a few years ago somebody bawled at me for the hour-long delay which his extrication had caused. I fear I bawled back. In fact the medical team had been painstakingly manipulating his injuries to avoid all the above, while the incident marshals progressively cut away the collapsed chassis members which were trapping him. It all took time - and thanks to the care they all took the outcome was fine... Festina lente.

DCN

Very important point. The difference between how this accident was handled, and the chaos that reigned at Monza (not to mention the Lauda and Williamson accidents, among many others) might well be critical. Having been privileged to watch the marshal and medical teams in action at many UK and US circuits over the years, I am very impressed with their standard of professionalism.

Many years ago, possibly over a GP week-end in the mid-Eighties, I was given a tour of the Brands Hatch GP circuit and its facilities, by the medical officer-in-chief, dr Nanciekevill ( hope I spell his name correctly.) One of the points he emphasized, was the importance of leaving the rescue job to the professionals, not to other drivers who would park their racing cars, hop out and, fuelled by high doses of adrenalin, start to pull an injured fellow driver out of a wrecked racing car, or try to take command of the whole emergency operation.
The emergency situation must be handled by a team of properly-trained, properly-equipped and properly-organized rescue workers which we fortunately would take for granted to-day.

But its seems not that long ago, that the fire marshal at the scene of Roger Williamson's accident was wearing a plastic mac.

[longhorn]

Lutz, many thanks for re-posting these. They certainly offer a different perspective to the 2 or 3 angles shown by the video footage. What is clear is that Patrese should not have crossed the white line, but how many true racers would not have done exactly the same, then and now? As far as I'm concerned, he is blameless. The accident appears to be a result of two cars moving into the same space at the same time (Hunt and Peterson) in a fraction of a second. A pure racing incident, not helped by the topography of the track or the efforts of the starter.



I understand there was some tension in the Peterson household regarding Ronnie's future in Formula 1, with the compromise being a switch to McLaren and the likelihood being that 1979 would be his last season. Ronnie already had plans in place to begin his own Formula 3 team, backed by Marlboro.

Hi

I've just joined this forum and have been following this thread with interest.

What the pictures do not show is what happened between the start and this point and I would refer everyone to Jenks' (DSJ) article in Motor Sport November 1978 entitled The Formula One Scene.

After the Italian GP Reutemann had expressed anger at the way some drivers darted from one side of the track to the other immediately after the start and added that drivers like Scheckter should be penalised for being undisciplined. Jenks goes on:

"Studying a series of photographs (in colour) taken between the starting signal and a matter of yards before the collisions began it is clear what Reutemann was going on about. On the grid he was immediately behind Scheckter; in the next picture there is no change in position, but in the next Scheckter has dived across to his right, to tuck in behind Laffite's Ligier, and there is empty track ahead of Reutemann's Ferrari. In order to get behind the Ligier the Wolf has cut across the front of Hunt's McLaren, and in the next picture Hunt is veering to the right. Just at that moment, Patrese, who had got a rolling start due to the mismanagement of the starter, is about to overtake Hunt, well within the half track width (the painted line). As he passes he has to swing out to the right as the McLaren is not running straight and true. "

I havn't seen the pictures to which Jenks refers, nor do I have access to them, but assume that what he wrote was a consensus from those who inspected them.

The uploaded pictures here show Hunt near the painted line, and, more importantly, Schecker now alongside Laffite. So Patrese, in firstly avoiding Hunt and then also Scheckter has no option but to cross the line.

In my opinion, Scheckter was most responsible for the ensuing events, not Patrese. The driver stand against Patrese was unwarranted and Hunt's continued tirade against Patrese disgraceful.

[Paul Taylor]

I think it's a bit difficult to put the blame on anyone - the cars were four wide heading towards a section of track that narrowed to be only wide enough for two cars. Patrese does appear to move across on Hunt but I think the incident could have still happened without Patrese there.

Edited by Paul Taylor, 28 July 2009 - 11:16.

[nmansellfan]

I think it's a bit difficult to put the blame on anyone - the cars were four wide heading towards a section of track that narrowed to be only wide enough for two cars. Patrese does appear to move across on Hunt but I think the incident could have still happened without Patrese there.

Also wasn't the fencing / barrier that closed off the oval circuit virtually at a right angle to the track in 1978? These days it funnels at a much more gradual angle from much earlier down the S/F straight. If that was the case in '78 maybe Ronnie might have just struck it a glancing blow and tore a corner off instead of what did happen. Just speculation.

Edited by nmansellfan, 28 July 2009 - 11:54.

[longhorn]

I think it's a bit difficult to put the blame on anyone - the cars were four wide heading towards a section of track that narrowed to be only wide enough for two cars. Patrese does appear to move across on Hunt but I think the incident could have still happened without Patrese there.

I wasn't seeking to blame anyone. What I meant is that Scheckter's actions were the catalyst for the ensuing events not Patrese. For me, regardless of the outcome, it was a most regrettable racing accident. Now of course, 30 years on, the hotshoes emulate these actions at every race.

[Ronnie792]

I wasn't seeking to blame anyone. What I meant is that Scheckter's actions were the catalyst for the ensuing events not Patrese. For me, regardless of the outcome, it was a most regrettable racing accident. Now of course, 30 years on, the hotshoes emulate these actions at every race.

And an accident it was. The track layout and starting procedure were primary causes. There was some weaving, but 3 separate angles of video footage from several sources (Swedish, French and U.S. TV, plus Duke Video), remains inconclusive. Scheckter is well clear of Hunt before the point of impact (2 car lengths?), which gives Hunt more than enough time to see him and react. Ronnie was moving marginally to the right and Hunt, simultaneously to the left and into a reducing gap and narrowing track. A collision was almost inevitable.

[lil'chris]

I understand there was some tension in the Peterson household regarding Ronnie's future in Formula 1

As I remember it, Barbro had recently suffered a miscarriage ( hence her not being at Monza ) so both she and Ronnie would've been suffering a lot of stress at that time which may have been misread.

[500MACHIII]

I was watching the Gp on italian TV on that Sunday afternoon and as as soon as the first replay was aired (few minutes after the crash) I did remark that the starter seemed mostly taking care about Villeneuve's move than about the whole pack still slowing down.....
Restelli had a heavy fault on my humble opinion: and this is supported by Villeneuve move. If memory serves correctly,the starter moved suddenly after Villenuve burn out from the grid...And Villeneuve pulled away before the starter's move.......
As far as I know things should go differently in a car racing start from rest....

I know that the 78 was neither stiff nor safe overall as the 79,and I agree that a massive misfortune did hit Peterson having damaged his 79 during practice time with no chance to drive the 2nd 79 available being the car settled for Andretti's body. In addiction, I heard of a serious disagreement inside Lotus team :Chapman was furious ,being his crew unwilling or not able (apparently so it was) to repair Peterson 's 79 wreck for the GP.
Furtherly a mistake by Niguarda Hospital medical staff might have also occurred ....actually this was debated iback to those days in Italy...

Anyhow,all this said, basically it seemd to me that the starter giving a little help to Ferrari and this caused a kind of traffic jam when the cars got closer to the first chicane ...
Notwithstanding his dirty playing Mr.Restelli wasn't officially blamed back then ...his being guilty was in the air but I can imagine that Ferrari/Fiat weight in Italy did play for sth to skip any legal consequence.
This is my point and it has been silently supported by committed F1 enthusiasts and insiders.

I'd be grateful to anyone suggesting me a video of the start ....possibly from different views so as to refresh and check my memories.
Alas YT doesn't help this time... as all its footages do show the same view of the grid. Thx a lot!

[Chezrome]

I was watching the Gp on italian TV on that Sunday afternoon and as as soon as the first replay was aired (few minutes after the crash) I did remark that the starter seemed mostly taking care about Villeneuve's move than about the whole pack still slowing down.....
Restelli had a heavy fault on my humble opinion: and this is supported by Villeneuve move. If memory serves correctly,the starter moved suddenly after Villenuve burn out from the grid...And Villeneuve pulled away before the starter's move.......
As far as I know things should go differently in a car racing start from rest....

I know that the 78 was neither stiff nor safe overall as the 79,and I agree that a massive misfortune did hit Peterson having damaged his 79 during practice time with no chance to drive the 2nd 79 available being the car settled for Andretti's body. In addiction, I heard of a serious disagreement inside Lotus team :Chapman was furious ,being his crew unwilling or not able (apparently so it was) to repair Peterson 's 79 wreck for the GP.
Furtherly a mistake by Niguarda Hospital medical staff might have also occurred ....actually this was debated iback to those days in Italy...

Anyhow,all this said, basically it seemd to me that the starter giving a little help to Ferrari and this caused a kind of traffic jam when the cars got closer to the first chicane ...
Notwithstanding his dirty playing Mr.Restelli wasn't officially blamed back then ...his being guilty was in the air but I can imagine that Ferrari/Fiat weight in Italy did play for sth to skip any legal consequence.
This is my point and it has been silently supported by committed F1 enthusiasts and insiders.

I'd be grateful to anyone suggesting me a video of the start ....possibly from different views so as to refresh and check my memories.
Alas YT doesn't help this time... as all its footages do show the same view of the grid. Thx a lot!

In this thread there must be some posts with links...

[Arjan de Roos]

In this thread there must be some posts with links...

As well as pictures made from the grand stand. At least they were shown on TNF.

[Direct Drive]

Patrese got shafted because James Hunt wasn't big enough to accept the blame that he was the driver who crashed into Ronnie. The fact that Monza, at the time, narrowed dangerously and solidly was combined with the general feeling that Patrese somehow had brought F3 style (then) tactics into F1 (weaving on the straight, etc) brought him to blame .... Plus he was fast as hell, almost winning in South Africa.
Only medical excellence vis-a-vis England vs. Italian doctor training, experience, knowledge and skillfulness was the difference.
I'll always believe Peterson died as a result of the medicine practiced at that time and place.
He was blameless in the accident as were the drivers around Jacques Lafitte when he broke his legs at the British GP.

Edited by Direct Drive, 19 August 2009 - 18:55.

[Ronnie792]

As I remember it, Barbro had recently suffered a miscarriage ( hence her not being at Monza ) so both she and Ronnie would've been suffering a lot of stress at that time which may have been misread.

For what it's worth, and from memory, Barbro miscarried around the time of the Monaco Grand Prix, so it must certainly have been a source of stress, but there was undoubted friction caused by Ronnie's frustrations at Lotus and Barbro's preferred plans for his retirement. After being virtually ever-present in the early '70s, she actually attended far fewer races after Nina's birth in 1975.

[Ralliart]

According to "Ronnie Peterson: Formula 1-Super Swede":
1 Barbro Peterson was not at Monza but at their flat in Monaco - nothing to do with a miscarriage
2 There is no mention of her putting pressure on him to retire. On the contrary, Peterson told Ghughie Zanon, after he'd signed with McLaren for two years, "I'll drive one more year and whether I win or lose the championship, I'll retire from F1, whatever." He also told, at that same time, Ake Strandberg, "This will be my last drive in F1. When I'm finished with F1, I can always drive BMW saloons."
3 Professor Watkins felt there was no significant delay either in the paddock medical center or the flight to the hospital. He was quoted as saying, "I counted 27 fractures in his legs and feet, and they had to operate on the ones in the major bones because they were threatening the circulation as they were out of line. The bone-marrow or fat embolisms were evident after surgery."
4 Mike Doodson was quoted as saying, "The starter was in my direct line of sight, and the car that was closest to me was Patrese's. The starter was watching Patrese, who was the best-placed Italian driver and Patrese intimidated the starter by keeping going instead of stopping in his box, and the starter saw this and dropped the flag. The consequence was that all the cars behind Patrese, which were coming up to their boxes, just floored their throttles. That was what caused the bunching up to the first chicane where the accident happened. Patrese also ignored the white line, which they'd been told they weren't allowed to cross. When you've got cars six abreast, it's immaterial who touched whom. In my mind, Patrese was solely responsible for it because he threatened the starter. At the restart, Patrese tried to do exactly the same thing."

[kayemod]

Very interesting, especially the quotes from Eric Sidney Watkins OBE, though I'm pretty sure that I've read them before in one of his books. I've long thought that criticism of the Italian medics was particularly unfair, their actions and treatment were dictated by circumstances and the patient's deteriorating condition, they really didn't have much choice in the matter, and as Professor Watkins said, they used their judgement and did what they considered was best for the patient at the time. Mike Doodson's expert eye witness quote is equally interesting, and I'm rather surprised that it hasn't been brought up before in this lengthy and somewhat rambling thread.

[longhorn]

According to "Ronnie Peterson: Formula 1-Super Swede":
1 Barbro Peterson was not at Monza but at their flat in Monaco - nothing to do with a miscarriage
2 There is no mention of her putting pressure on him to retire. On the contrary, Peterson told Ghughie Zanon, after he'd signed with McLaren for two years, "I'll drive one more year and whether I win or lose the championship, I'll retire from F1, whatever." He also told, at that same time, Ake Strandberg, "This will be my last drive in F1. When I'm finished with F1, I can always drive BMW saloons."
3 Professor Watkins felt there was no significant delay either in the paddock medical center or the flight to the hospital. He was quoted as saying, "I counted 27 fractures in his legs and feet, and they had to operate on the ones in the major bones because they were threatening the circulation as they were out of line. The bone-marrow or fat embolisms were evident after surgery."
4 Mike Doodson was quoted as saying, "The starter was in my direct line of sight, and the car that was closest to me was Patrese's. The starter was watching Patrese, who was the best-placed Italian driver and Patrese intimidated the starter by keeping going instead of stopping in his box, and the starter saw this and dropped the flag. The consequence was that all the cars behind Patrese, which were coming up to their boxes, just floored their throttles. That was what caused the bunching up to the first chicane where the accident happened. Patrese also ignored the white line, which they'd been told they weren't allowed to cross. When you've got cars six abreast, it's immaterial who touched whom. In my mind, Patrese was solely responsible for it because he threatened the starter. At the restart, Patrese tried to do exactly the same thing."

Well. Doodson was a friend of Hunt, they shared the BBC commentary box for 14 years and he wasn't about to blame him for what happened was he? How on earth could the clearly unbiased Doodson know what the starter was looking at just prior to dropping the flag? It's just too convenient to blame Patrese. In a previous post on this thread I said that Patrese was well inside the white line until Scheckter cut across the front of Hunt, from left to right, who then started moving right, into Patrese's path. Scheckter then also moved further right outside Laffite which pushed Patrese out over the white line. Patrese was well clear of Hunt and did not cause him to take avoiding action. It was Hunt who then collided with Peterson. A racing accident where Scheckter's actions as much as anybody led to the collision but Patrese was made the scapegoat.

[Chezrome]

Well. Doodson was a friend of Hunt, they shared the BBC commentary box for 14 years and he wasn't about to blame him for what happened was he? How on earth could the clearly unbiased Doodson know what the starter was looking at just prior to dropping the flag? It's just too convenient to blame Patrese. In a previous post on this thread I said that Patrese was well inside the white line until Scheckter cut across the front of Hunt, from left to right, who then started moving right, into Patrese's path. Scheckter then also moved further right outside Laffite which pushed Patrese out over the white line. Patrese was well clear of Hunt and did not cause him to take avoiding action. It was Hunt who then collided with Peterson. A racing accident where Scheckter's actions as much as anybody led to the collision but Patrese was made the scapegoat.

Good points. I would be very, very sceptical what Doodson says about the incident at Monza. A while ago I mailed the editor at www.grandprix.com about some scathing remarks Doodson made in his regular column (THE HACK LOOKS BACK) about Riccardo Patrese which were totally out of line. I never got a reply. Why Doodson never expressed this particular eye-account before? Because he is either lying, or his imagination has changed his memory.

At Monza 1978, the starter made an enormous mistake, that is true, I can even imagine that he was pressured to do 'something for a Ferrari'... but for Patrese, just because he was Italian? Starting from the 12th (!) position? Give.me.a.ffing. break. When Patrese was leading the San Marino Grand Prix 1983 and crashed out (last lap or thereabouts) the crowds cheered... because Tambay (French, but driving a Ferrari) could take the lead and the win that way. It is a shame, a real shame that neither the BBC, nor Murray Walker ever had the courage to say to James Hunt (and Doodson): 'Okay lads, you're entitled to your opinions. But you are journalists now, performing a public task. Stop attacking drivers because of a personal feud.' Murray's behaviour disappointed me the most. He called himself James' friend. But what is a friend if he dare not correct you?

Edited by Chezrome, 26 August 2009 - 16:25.

[longhorn]

Walker has said that he feels unable to criticise drivers because he hasn't been out there and done it himself. I don't think that he saw Hunt as a friend but suspect that he didn't contradict him because he had his eye on the long game whereas Hunt was only going to be there until someone better came along. Regrettably, uninformed viewers believed a lot of what Hunt said which is always the case when an individual has a platform for making comments. A bit like Stewart blaming Regazzoni for their coming together at the 1972 German GP, from his column in the Daily Express.

[Chezrome]

I feel I have been a bit unfair to James Hunt regarding the fact that he 'always' was severely criticial of Riccardo Patrese. I am watching the Grand Prix Zandvoort of 1981, and there, for about 20 seconds, James Hunts is praising Patrese for his driving and his appaling luck in that season.

So, Hunt was not always critical of Patrese. Or, perhaps, in later years, he became more critical. Interesting.

Edited by Chezrome, 28 August 2009 - 07:40.

[Maldwyn]

Towards the start of this thread Ray said that:

According to Alan Jones writing at the time, the green light was put on just as the third row was coming to a stop - the cars behind them still had some steam on and that was a recipe for disaster.

With 24 cars starting the race that means that 75% of the grid was still moving to their grid slots. How does MD single out one of those 18 drivers, particularly as it was the job of the starter to see that the grid came to a halt before starting the race? Are we really to believe that the starter took his cue from a driver in the midfield?

[Catalina Park]

Towards the start of this thread Ray said that:

With 24 cars starting the race that means that 75% of the grid was still moving to their grid slots. How does MD single out one of those 18 drivers, particularly as it was the job of the starter to see that the grid came to a halt before starting the race? Are we really to believe that the starter took his cue from a driver in the midfield?

It is also worth looking at the starts in previous races at Monza. I wonder who the starter was looking at in previous years when he did the same thing?

[ensign14]

It is also worth looking at the starts in previous races at Monza. I wonder who the starter was looking at in previous years when he did the same thing?

Regazzoni, usually.

[longhorn]

I don't think it was the case when he won from the second row in 1970 but he jumped into the lead from the 4th row when we there in 1971. We didn't see it but he clearly hadn't stopped in his grid position.

[COUGAR508]

Regazzoni, usually.

Wasn't it often said that the Italian GP in the 1970s was only started after Clay had lit up his rear tyres?