295 replies to this topic

[cheesy poofs]

Two other things.

1. Was there someone on Peterson's left that could have made him move towards James ?
2. What was the position of the cars when they made contact ?

[Maldwyn]

From a still photograph it is impossible to judge to comparative speeds of the cars and therefore their positions a split second later. There is no question that Patrese is astride the white line, but this was never in dispute, neither was the fact the the starter releasing the cars too soon caused the disparity in speed between those at the front and at the back of the grid.

It is interesting to see Scheckter's position. He had qualified alongside James Hunt but (in an Autocourse photo) can be seen astride the white line just ahead of Patrese. He too moved across in front of Hunt. How was the grid lined up? Was Scheckter on the left and Hunt on the right (nearest the pits) or visa versa? Whichever was the case there was a lot of movement and jostling for position by any number of drivers.

The head on shot shows how close they all were and how one movement could have caused the chain reaction that resulted in Peterson's accident, but it would seem that Hunt would have known where Patrese was as he is clearly ahead and in line of sight, while James is not moving towards the Lotus at any point shown here.

These photographs (thanks for posting them Doug ) do not change my view, which is that of the investigators and (eventually) the GPDA, that Patrese was not to blame for what was a racing accident with tragic consequences.

Something I've just noticed, although maybe it is a reflection on the helmet, but in the view from the score tower Ronnie appears to be looking down into the Lotus cockpit...

[cheesy poofs]

Maldwyn,

This is how they lined-up.

1. Andretti 2. Villeneuve
3. Jabouille 4. Lauda
5. Peterson 6. Jones
7. Watson 8. Laffite
9. Scheckter 10. Hunt
11. Reutemann 12. Patrese

In the head-on shot, you can assume that the first four cars are ahead - since they were not involved in he crash. In that shot, you have drivers from position 5 to 12 but one is missing: Reutemann. Could he be on Ronnie's left ?

Also, I had a looked at your website. I noted something very important. Have a close look at the start-line photo that you have in the Formula 1 section. See if you can blow-up this picture.

This is how I things when the lights went off.

The first four drivers on the grid get a clean start. Nobody seems to get an advantage over any of the others. Peterson - who starts fifth - has a very poor start. He moves over to his left to fend off Watson while Scheckter - who sits behind the Irishman on the grid - goes to Peterson's right. Scheckter moves ahead of both Peterson and Laffite while behind them Patrese goes around Hunt who is trying to get by the slow starting Lotus - which has come back to the middle of the race track- trying to fend off others behind him. As the field approches the first turn bottleneck, Patrese ( over the line ) moves to his left to tuck in behind the Wolf. Hunt sees the Arrows and turns sharply into the Lotus of Peterson. The left front wheel of the McLaren hits the right rear wheel of the Lotus, sending him off infront of the McLaren and straight into the fast approching gardrail. Peterson's car explodes upon impact and bounces back into the path of the on-coming field.

If you look at the above pitures. Where is Reutemann ? As I said - Could he have been to Ronnie's left - causing him to move slightly into Hunt's path ??

Could Peterson have had a mechanical problem ( clutch maybe ?? )

[Frank de Jong]

The Autosprint yearbook 1978 (Doug's pictures are probably from the same source) unfortuntely add little, other than indicating that Watson swerved around Ronnie, illustrating the poor start Ronnie had. Reutemann was behind ronnie, as this earlier picture illustrates:


Doug's first picture is a bit larger in my book, and shows a piece of a car behind him; not Reutemann but a Tyrrell. The only place for Reutemann is either close behind Ronnie's left rear wheel, or at Ronnie's left side...

[Maldwyn]

Quote

Originally posted by cheesy poofs
Where is Reutemann ? As I said - Could he have been to Ronnie's left - causing him to move slightly into Hunt's path ??

Could Peterson have had a mechanical problem ( clutch maybe ?? )

The photo you mention on the website shows John Watson slighly behind Peterson and almost on the grass. Reutemann, Hunt, Scheckter and Patrese are all a distance behind. The photo was taken split seconds after the start as Villeneuve and Andretti still appear to be leaving rubber burning on the track.



In the later Autocourse photo (p.178 of the 1978-79 edition) Villeneuve is clearly ahead, with Andretti alongside Lauda. Jabouille is in clear air then come Jones with Watson almost alongside eachother. Closely following are Laffite, Scheckter (astride the white line), Patrese (over the white line), Peterson then Hunt. Reutemann is a little way behind.

Given the rapid progress made by Watson and Scheckter in relation to Peterson it is possible that Reutemann also closed rapidly on the rear of the Lotus, as Frank's photo shows the Ferrari seemingly aiming to follow Watson through on Ronnie's left.

[cheesy poofs]

Thanks Maldwyn.

As I mentionned, Peterson's sluggish start makes him move over on his left to fend off Watson ( this can be claerly seen in your picture ). This move opens up the whole middle of the race track for Hunt, Scheckter and further down Reutemann. Both Hunt and Scheckter can be seen pointing their cars towards that gap left by the Lotus. Once Peterson realizes that the Brabham has gone through, cuts back in to the middle to fend off the rest of the pack. This allows Reutemann ( who can be clearly seen in Frank's picture ) to head for the gap on Peterson's left.

[Maldwyn]

Quote

Originally posted by masterhit
This reminds me - remember when Patrese tried to overtake Gerhard Berger in Portugal 1992, again over the pit lane demarcation line? Berger was slowing to enter the pits, Patrese misread this for whatever reason, went way over the line and tangled with Berger, somersaulted, as is lucky to be with us today after that incident.

A rather different situation. RP was directly behind GB around the final turn and was shaping to overtake. He stayed in the slipstream to get the benefit of the tow down the straight but GB was heading for the pits RP appeared not to realise this until the last moment and as GB slowed RP hit the McLaren's rear wheel.

[masterhit]

Not really that different in the sense that this illustrates that more than once Patrese has attempted to use a section of circuit to gain position which is normally designated as the filter line for cars entering/exiting the pitlane, and in both situations there was an accident. However I would emphasise that this does not in any way suggest that Patrese was to blame for the Monza '78 accident.

[Arska]

My opinion is that Patrese was so focused on staying in Berger's slipstream that he even wasn't aware he was over the line, and obviously didn't anticipate Berger to go into the pits. To him it appeared as if Berger just took a (very) defensive line.

[Maldwyn]

Quote

Originally posted by masterhit
this illustrates that more than once Patrese has attempted to use a section of circuit to gain position which is normally designated as the filter line for cars entering/exiting the pitlane, and in both situations there was an accident.

Watch the video of the Estoril accident again and you'll see at no point did Patrese use anything other than the race circuit. The two incidents are in no way comparable.

[Lutz G]

Doug, thank you so much for posting these shots!

Quote

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Perhaps this can be integrated into the correct thread 'cos I can't find
DCN

Here we go:

http://www.atlasf1.c...s...=*peterson*

@cheesy poofs

"Two other things.

1. Was there someone on Peterson's left that could have made him move towards James ?
2. What was the position of the cars when they made contact ? "

Good point. It would be interesting to know if Patrese perhaps slowed a little bit down a split second, after the shots 2 and 3 doug posted, to move to the left behind Scheckter. So there seems to be no front shot of the moment when Peterson and Hunt (or Patrese and Hunt before?)actually touched? Did Patrese touch Hunt at all? I don't remember that one.

@LittleChris

"One thing that strikes me about the third picture, which I'd not seen before, is that Ronnie seems to be slightly angled in toward the centre of the road and thus could also have contributed to the accident. I hope it's just the angle of the photo as I'd be devastated to think that he may have been partially culpable for his own death. "

*Very* interesting point - I see Peterson too as slightly angled in toward the centre on that shot (before reading your post)

IMO it was a racing accident. On the track IMO nobody is to blame (like Buford did to Patrese) in a "it's his fault only" way.

As posted before:

"James was really angry with himself and that he felt extreme remorse about his involvement in the accident that claimed the life of his friend Ronnie"

And Patrese had his part - but is IMO not to blame for Peterson's death.

@Barry Lake

"Should a large portion of blame go all the way back to whoever made the decision to give the flag to this particular gentleman "

And to the man who switched to green himself. He had a *big* responsibility in these days - and he could have said "no" before taking this job.

BTW: Could it be that the same man pressed the button one year before at Monza?

[Buford]

And I still say, having been a driver, if somebody crams in from an illegal lane in front of me. nearly hitting me and taking my line away and it causes a crash, it his his fault because if he had not done that, there would have been no crash. I would have had no reason to alter the straight line I had every right to expect to be allowed to continue on.

Is there anybody else here who has actually driven racing cars and knows the unwritten as well as written rules racers live by? If so, what do you think? Couch sitter opinions from people who never made split second, life and death decisions are nearly worthless IMO. What about you racers, what do you say?

[Maldwyn]

Quote

Originally posted by Lutz G
Did Patrese touch Hunt at all?

Jackie Oliver:

Quote

"The initial evidence was just from a TV film taken from behind the cars, plus what James said about Riccardo. But a Dutch TV film shot from the front and side of the cars shows Riccardo going across in front of James with feet to spare. He did not touch James at all."

In addition Tony Southgate said that the tyres on Patrese's car were clean and showed no signs of contact.

Much of Patrese's alleged involvement appears to have originated from comments made by James Hunt. Understandably, as a senior driver and WDC, his view had considerable influence and was subsequently supported by other senior figures in the GPDA. Using the pretext of 'other indicidents' the blame was then laid squarely at Patrese's door. The fact that he was subsequently cleared of any blame by the initial investigation, the GPDA, and a court case seems to be forgotten sometimes.

[Doug Nye]

Quote

Originally posted by Buford
What about you racers, what do you say?

The most self-admiring of worthless racers or the most modest of truly great drivers have - in my considerable experience - one thing in common. Most of their opinions are vividly coloured by having their heads jammed firmly up their own exhausts. I have much sympathy with some of what you say - but what real racer worth his salt has ever taken much notice of a mere line of paint? Contrary to some opinion Formula 1 drivers even in the 1970s were no bunch of girlies...

DCN

[Buford]

That is a move that would get your license pulled even at the entry level Midwestern Council of Sports Car Clubs events, let alone F1. Drivers have to be responsible for their own actions and no apoligist's opinions 25 years later make any difference. As my instructor at the Jim Russell School Jaques Couture, used to say, at the top of his lungs, with his finger pointed in the slot in your helmet a half inch from your nose,

'YOU ARE THE DRIVER. YOU ARE IN CONTROL OF THE CAR. DON'T TELL ME IT IS TOO HARD. DON'T TELL ME IT IS SOMEBODY ELSES FAULT. YOU ARE THE DRIVER. YOU ARE IN CONTROL OF THE CAR."

Patrese was in control of his car. He made an illegal move, took the line away from another driver on a straightaway. A place there should have been none of that crap going on. This was not contesting positioning for a corner where there is more of a grey area. This is a straight. People are driving straight. Suddenly a maniac appears from out of nowhere and crams in, caushing a fatal crash. It is his fault because if he had not done what he did, there would have been no fatal crash.

[Doug Nye]

Possibly there is some merit in what you say - given the circumstances of a concertina grid ripping into a narrowing funnel of track after criminally incompetent mishandling of the start procedure itself - but as a great racer you would be fully aware of the split-second nature of make and break decisions. If you were an Italian racing driver in whom the sap was still rising, well worth your salt and strapped into the cockpit of that gold Arrows and you spotted that space on your home track in front of your home crowd would you have backed off and said 'after you Alphonse'? Perhaps Riccardo did not have the benefit of a .... Jim Russell course?

DCN

[Buford]

I am not arguing that the starter did not share blame, nor am I arguing I might not have done the same had I ever gotten the chance. I was a good driver but not great. Had I been great, even despite the lack of money, and the fact there was no rides open except to ride buyers, I still probably would have overcome the odds and gotten into the big time. A handful did. But I drove enough races in cars that could kill you, and did kill people in races I was in, that I know the unwritten rules among drivers. The guy who takes another guy's racing room away, and leaves him nowhere to go, (or in this case so little room that it causes him to alter course in a split second), then he is the one to blame if there is a crash resulting from that action.

I do not even understand how this simple FACT of race driving can be disputed.

[Maldwyn]

Buford, you said earlier that the photographs changed your opinion you have held for almost 25 years, and yet now you are reverting to your original view that a maniac appeared from out of nowhere and caused a fatal crash. Which is it to be?

Riccardo Patrese was made a scapegoat as a result of opinions expressed by James Hunt in the immediate aftermath of the accident. These opinions were proved to be incorrect by two investigations and a court case. The GPDA, of which Hunt was a member, issued a statement in 1979 saying that: "Because of the latest rumours about Riccardo Patrese being responsible for the Monza accident last year all the drivers want to make it clear that after all the evidence and inquiries that came out Riccardo Patrese could not be held responsible."

My couch sitter opinions may very well be worthless but surely the view of the Grand Prix Drivers Association is not.

[Catalina Park]

How was the relationship between Ronnie and James and James and Mclaren at Monza?
Ronnie had just been signed to drive for Mclaren, was James dumped or was he leaving?

Looking at the photos Ricardo has only passed 1 car on the right (James) and he left a lot of room, It looks like he could have done the same thing without crossing the line.

[Buford]

I said my 25 year opinion changed that Patrese was directly along side of Hunt and turned left into him forcing him over into Peterson. That is what the video shows but the photos do not. Therefore I now believe the video was distorted by a telephoto lense. However, he still in the photo is clearly coming out of illegal racing surface and crowding in, and is forcing a driver who is driving in a straight line to make an avoiding maneuver, and that caused a crash. So it is not so blatent as forcing him over from directly along side. But the ultimate responsibility for coming out of "nowhere" (off the track) and forcing his way in where he had no right to be considering where he came from remains the same. It is the exact same thing as if he had gone off in the grass somewhere and without regard to the safety of the cars on the proper racing surface, or his own, had forced his way in there instead of slowing down and waiting to come back on the track when he had sufficient room to avoid crashing people behind him. YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

Now while I would certainly yield to the GP drivers if they made that statement, I think they were referring to Patrese should not be held criminally responsible, and he should not. I interpret that to be what they were saying. He should not be held responsible for a criminal act. But I still say he is absolutely without any question responsible for causing the crash due to a bonehead unsafe driving move that if he had not made, there would have been no accident.

As Dan Gurney said at Indy in 1966, "You would think that 33 of what are supposed to be the best drivers in the world could drive down a little straight piece of road without running into each other." Well as we know, sometimes they can't. And one reason they can't is when some bonehead goes off the track and then forces his way in without regard to the safety of his fellow competitors, or his own.

[Buford]

Another point I should make, is I am referring to 1978 and the standards of that day. Since then, since Senna, unsafe bonehead, piss poor driving and running your competitors off the track has become the norm. People routinely do the kind of crap we are discussing here, because the little pretty boys no longer fear for their lives, and the officials let them get away with it. But this was 1978. We did not see people doing lunitic moves when crashing could mean death. You cannot judge this by the standards of the pampered dilatants we see today. This was an era when real men raced cars and making this type of stupid move meant fireballs and dead bodies.

[Maldwyn]

Quote

Originally posted by Buford
I still say he is absolutely without any question responsible for causing the crash due to a bonehead unsafe driving move that if he had not made, there would have been no accident.

We agree to disagree in that case.

[AlesiUK]

A Question:

how is Patrese moving over on Hunt any different from the "chop" across the track comonly used by drivers at the start in modern Gp racing?

i really think it is terrible for anyone to blame Ricardo for the accident,he was a racing driver,he was racing.

As a (former) racer myself,i understand what Buford is saying about patrese moving over from outside the track.If i was Hunt my initial reaction would have been to blame patrese say he moved over on me.i can understand him doing that.But when i had calmed down and reveiwed the incident i would accept that patrese has no blame,he simply overtook james.

What james did in blaming ricardo for all those years was wrong,pure and simple,all the other drivers except james said they accepted ricardo was in no way to blame.A court of law decided ricardo was in no way to blame,the GPDA said ricardo was in no way to blame.

[Buford]

Well I guess it is a good thing I am not instructing race drivers anymore because I would be telling them going off the track and crowding your way back into traffic with no regard to safety was something they could not do and they would be saying, "What do you mean. We want to do that."

[Viss1]

Quote

Originally posted by Buford
People routinely do the kind of crap we are discussing here, because the little pretty boys no longer fear for their lives, and the officials let them get away with it. But this was 1978. We did not see people doing lunitic moves when crashing could mean death. You cannot judge this by the standards of the pampered dilatants we see today. This was an era when real men raced cars and making this type of stupid move meant fireballs and dead bodies.

[Milan Fistonic]

Quote

Originally posted by Buford
Well I guess it is a good thing I am not instructing race drivers anymore because I would be telling them going off the track and crowding your way back into traffic with no regard to safety was something they could not do and they would be saying, "What do you mean. We want to do that."

I could understand your statement if Patrese had actually gone off the track and was trying to force his way back on at a speed slower than the rest of the pack but that isn't the case. Patrese has passed Hunt in a straight line, is ahead of the McLaren, and is then moving over to take the racing line. Perfectly legitimate I would have thought.

[Buford]

I see that point too. And as I said, I was always under the impression he just crowded him over. It looks like he did not force him over. But the video shows that when he did come over Hunt's move left was immediate. So Hunt clearly thought he was going to get hit, or felt he had no room, and his move to avoid the situation was instantaneous. Therefore, had Patrese not gone off the legal track and returned into the tiniest of gaps, one so small that a world class driver would feel in that split second he had nowhere to go, there would have been no accident.

The guy who caused that by leaving the proper racing surface and squeezing back in is responsible IMO. But we all have had our say. It appears the GP drivers at some point changed their original opinion. Perhaps they had more evidence than we have seen. Or they just wanted to police themselves and not have government involvement so they said his move was OK. From what I have seen, it caused the accident and if he had not done it, there would have been no accident.

[Jonathan]

My nearly 24-year-old impression of Monza '78 is that irregardless of how you perceive Patrese's move, the impact between Hunt & Peterson was actually rather minor, but the Lotus 78 front suspension & steering was simply too fragile.

I distinctly recall Mario having a front wheel fly into his lap in the 1977 Japanese Grand Prix, follwing minor contact with another car. While the safety standards back then were much less then they are now, even then Lotus had a reputation for building cars which were designed to be as light as possible. My assumption had always been that it was Hunt's Left rear that mearly "brushed" by Ronnie's right front wheel, causing some form of suspension failure that resulted in a loss of steering. Is this not the case ?

I have therefore always blamed the car, and neither Hunt, Patrese, or Peterson for the incident.

[Buford]

In the video Hunt moves left about a half car width in reaction to Patrese cutting in front (though it looks like driving right into his side). Because it is apparantely distorted, it is hard to tell what wheels contacted what but Peterson immediately turns right and hits the guard rail head on and the car explodes. It ripped the front off and Peterson eventually dives forward out of the front many seconds later at a point you cannot even see him due to the flames and Hunt and Depallier are acting like they want to go in, but the flames are too big. When he appears on the ground out in front of the car, the two guys with fire stuff start shooting him and then the two drivers rush in because they see he is alive and moving and only trapped by the legs. He is completeley out of the car, lying on the track, with just his knees down in the wreckage.

So yes the front of the car was destroyed. How any other car on the grid would have fared in the same situation, we do not know. But in today's cars, he probably would have not even have been injured.

[Jonathan]

Quote

Originally posted by Buford
So yes the front of the car was destroyed. How any other car on the grid would have fared in the same situation, we do not know. But in today's cars, he probably would have not even have been injured.

Yes. The section of ARMCO Peterson impacted was set at a 45 Degree angle to the direction of travel, approximately the same angle that he vered off at. Meaning he hit effectivly head-on at something like 170 KM/H. On impact the ARMCO barrier folded up, and the front of Peterson's car was ripped apart by the ARMCO post that didn't fold-up. Peterson had time to lock-up his wheels, but not enough to slow down much. I have no idea how a modern day, or even a comparable car from that period would have with-held under such circumstances.

My previous post was ment to convey that it seems likely that Peterson suffered a total failure of his steering system from what was a minor "glancing" impact. I dont think other cars from that period would have done this.

[David M. Kane]

The only "mechanical" problem Ronnie had was that he was in a Lotus 78 instead of a Lotus 79 because Colin felt he no longer could keep Ronnie
on tight on the leash. Lets no forget his role in this whole unfortunate
accident. The fact that Colin knew Ronnie was unhappy and was going to McLaren surely did NOT sit well with the old man.

Mario developed the 79 and he deserved the glory, but this "hold position #2" had finally eaten its way through to Ronnie's soul.

[Buford]

On the tape Peterson was interviewed before the race. He discussed the accident he had from a very high speed in practice when he lost the brakes. He was in the 78 because he had crashed is primary car.

"that he was in a Lotus 78 instead of a Lotus 79 because Colin felt he no longer could keep Ronnie
on tight on the leash. "

This statement is bunk, at least concerning that particular race.

[Jonathan]

Quote

Originally posted by David M. Kane
Mario developed the 79 and he deserved the glory, but this "hold position #2" had finally eaten its way through to Ronnie's soul.

My understanding is that, while they did have a spare 79 chassis available, it was setup/built for Mario and could not be easily adapted to fit Ronnie's Stature.

Lotus had plenty of techniques for assuring that Ronnie didn't embarrass Mario, and had used plenty of them through-out the 1978 season.

Interestingly enough Ronnie it was claimed did the majority of the development work (something I was shocked to learn given his poor reputation for car setup skills) on the 79 chassis, and it was Mario's spur of the moment decision to drive the 79 in its Zolder début (Peterson had in fact been slated to drive that car).

[AlesiUK]

As a racer,put yourself in Patrese seat,because of the starters error he was traveling much faster than Hunt,there was no room to james left,so you have 2 choices-either back off and hold position or go to the right where there was tarmac and room to pass.Any racer would instinctively go right and overtake.If the positions were reversed i have little doubt James would have gone right to overtake,then moved back in once he was passed as ricardo did.

interesting about the frailty of the lotus,wasnt there some controversy over the same thing when Elio de Angelis was killed?

Also Rindts fatal crash was somewhat blamed on the frail lotus i believe?

[Buford]

Since I was kind of a wild man, I would probably have done the same and if the crash would have happened because I crowded my way in from off the track, it would have been my fault. Fortunately I never made that big a mistake.

[mark f1]

AlesiUK - Elio was killed in a Brabham in '86, not a Lotus. It was in Gordon Murray's low lying Brabham, the year after he left Lotus.

[AlesiUK]

my mistake,i apologise to colin chapman.as i was writing it i was thinking it was wrong,and that it was rindts accident i was thinking of.

[AlesiUK]

Im sure this has been mentioned before,but i was checking the race stats for monza 78 for another purpose and i came across the fact that Andretti and Villeneuve were penalised 1minute for jumping the start?

how can this be?was it at the 2nd start after the accident?surely it couldnt be the first start considering the starters mistake?

[Doug Nye]

Quote

Originally posted by Buford
...So yes the front of the car was destroyed. How any other car on the grid would have fared in the same situation, we do not know. But in today's cars, he probably would have not even have been injured.

Well at least you're probably right about this point - in a current car Ronnie would probably have got away with it. Fragile steering or fragile front suspension on a Lotus is utterly irrelevant (mentioned earlier in this thread), the clip occurred on the right-rear wheel/suspension and that was what pitched Ronnie into a clockwise spin which arched right-handed (of course) into the right-side barrier, which was closing in at an angle across his path at the mouth of the old high-speed track. The front end of the aluminium Type 78 monocque was NOT designed to protect the driver in such an impact, other than by the standards of that time. Its frontal impact performance was indeed on the lower end of the contemporary scale of acceptability. As for all this old toffee about 'every driver knows the rules' therefore Patrese should carry the can, just recall one thing.

No contemporary driver was tougher, more experienced, more involved than Andretti. He was one of the first - and possible THE first - contemporary drivers to reach out to Patrese when the 'Autosprint' photo evidence came to light, and apologise to him for supporting the Watkins Glen ban. "I guess we got that wrong"... Not a poorly qualified witness, I would think?

DCN

[Rediscoveryx]

Quote

Originally posted by AlesiUK
Im sure this has been mentioned before,but i was checking the race stats for monza 78 for another purpose and i came across the fact that Andretti and Villeneuve were penalised 1minute for jumping the start?

how can this be?was it at the 2nd start after the accident?surely it couldnt be the first start considering the starters mistake?

I'm pretty sure it was at the second start. I remember reading that the starter had received quite a lecturing after the first start, so the second time - instead of sending the field away to quickly - he waited for a very long time, and Andretti and Villeneuve who had been sitting on the grid longest of all were practically "forced" to jump the start.

[Maldwyn]

Quote

Originally posted by Doug Nye
As for all this old toffee about 'every driver knows the rules' therefore Patrese should carry the can, just recall one thing.

No contemporary driver was tougher, more experienced, more involved than Andretti. He was one of the first - and possible THE first - contemporary drivers to reach out to Patrese when the 'Autosprint' photo evidence came to light, and apologise to him for supporting the Watkins Glen ban. "I guess we got that wrong"... Not a poorly qualified witness, I would think?

DCN

Thank you for bringing Andretti's comments to light. I had not read that before but it seems typical of the man that he would do such a thing.

Rediscoveryx - yes it was the second start. If I remember rightly it took some time for the circuit to be made ready for a restart, and when it finally was Jody Scheckter had an accident during a warm-up lap that meant more repairs to an armco barrier. Maybe there was some discussion of postponing the race given all that had happened, but concern over the reaction of the fans meant the race went ahead late in the afternoon (early evening?)

[maxim]

Quote

Originally posted by Maldwyn


Rediscoveryx - yes it was the second start. If I remember rightly it took some time for the circuit to be made ready for a restart, and when it finally was Jody Scheckter had an accident during a warm-up lap that meant more repairs to an armco barrier. Maybe there was some discussion of postponing the race given all that had happened, but concern over the reaction of the fans meant the race went ahead late in the afternoon (early evening?)

IIRC wasn't that tragic GP drastically shortened due to upcoming darkness?

[AlesiUK]

i think you may be right,i have it that only 40laps were completed,surely more than that were scheduled?

[Milan Fistonic]

The race was restarted a few minutes after 6 pm. It had already been decided to reduce the race to 40 laps.

[mp4]

It was, indeed, a very dark day when the incidents of Monza 1978 are looked at with the benefit of hindsight.
It's not really fair to blame Ricardo for Ronnie's death, nor is it fair to make some sort of statement that Colin wanted Mario to win and therefore relegated Ronnie to the Lotus 78.
Mario, in an interview many years later, laid the blame at the feet of the doctors assigned to care for Ronnie.
I don't care if Ronnie HAD made some sort of deal with McLaren for 1979. Colin was not THAT cold hearted that he would make Ronnie start with the previous year's car. To suggest such a thing is ill advised and, basically, stupid.
As an aside, I have some wonderful photos of Ronnie doing donuts at Mosport, in 1977. He made a small error in turn five and wondered onto the grass. As he tried to get back on the tarmac, did a few spins that would make any true F1 head smile with glee.

[David M. Kane]

mp4, sorry but I stick by my words. The information came from an article in
Motorsport. When I get time I will get back to you with the full and correct details as well as the author's name. Secondly, you need to read
Nina Rindt comments about what really happen at her Jochen's Monza crash.
The only driver Colin ever even had a pulse for was Jim Clark, the rest were mere hired hit men. Yes, I do think he was that cold; I do, however, respect your right to your opinion. I, however, do NOT consider myself stupid but rather willing to call a spade a spade.

[mat1]

concerning the "guilt" re the death of Peterson: of course there are several factors: the starter, the strength of the car maybe, Hunt (overreacted, i think), the doctors in the hospital, perhaps even Peterson himself.

But also Patrese. Although his move was understandable, and maybe even to some extent excusable, that does not mean he is totally without responsibility. In that respect I find Buford rather convincing.

That does not mean he is criminally responsible or somtehing like that. And it also does not mean he is solely responsible. But (as Buford argued)
1. the accident would not have happened if Patrese had not made his move over the outside
2. patrese was not forced to do what he did. he choose to do so.
3. his move was not completely to be expected by Hunt. Perhaps not reckless, but still unexpected.

Of course, this is something completely different than what became common practice in the days of Senna and afterwards. And yes, if we think what Senna c.s. did was fine, then Patreses disputable action is small change.

mat1

[dmj]

How many cars were actually moving at the moment when starter gave signal? If I understood well Patrese was just two rows behind Hunt on the grid? So how then that real backmarkers, ones that had to have much greater speed than Patrese, didn't gain more in that situation? Was Hunt also moving at the starting moment, poor Ronnie being so slow because he was caught just in the moment when he stopped his car, thus being driver who was most unready for starting in that second? I always thought Patrese was far more down the grid, in last row probably, so he had much more time to build up speed but it seems it wasn't the case.

[cheesy poofs]

Quote

Originally posted by dmj
How many cars were actually moving at the moment when starter gave signal? If I understood well Patrese was just two rows behind Hunt on the grid? So how then that real backmarkers, ones that had to have much greater speed than Patrese, didn't gain more in that situation? Was Hunt also moving at the starting moment, poor Ronnie being so slow because he was caught just in the moment when he stopped his car, thus being driver who was most unready for starting in that second? I always thought Patrese was far more down the grid, in last row probably, so he had much more time to build up speed but it seems it wasn't the case.

Hunt was 10th on the grid with Patrese right behind him in 12th position.

Having looked at the video, over and over, during this past weekend, I must say that Scheckter is the fastest moving driver of those in the top 12 positions on the grid. He passes Hunt, Laffite and of course Peterson. Patrese only gets in front of two drivers; Hunt and Ronnie.

It is very unclear how many drivers were still moving from the pictures I've seen and the video footage...

[Rediscoveryx]

Nigel Roebuck wrote a piece on Riccardo Patrese in the July issue of Motorsport. This is a part of that article:

Quote

Riccardo was one of those young drivers very quick from the outset, and often drove over his head in those early days. But what affected him more than anything was the accident at Monza in 1978, which cost the life of Ronnie Peterson.
Other drivers judged Patrese culpable for the chain-reaction disaster, which occured within seconds of the start. It seemed not to matter that the blame lay plainly elsewhere: this upstart was a natural whipping boy, who needed to be taught a lesson. If Patrese's entryfor the next race, at Watkins Glen, was accepted, they said, they wouldn't take part. Thus they had effectively banned him for a race.

"It was because they didn't like my attitude over the season, but by timing it when they did, it looked as if they were punishing me for the Monza accident. Psychologically, I had no problem with that, because I knew it hadn't been my fault. But it took a long time to forget how the other drivers treated me".

Many years on, one of them told me [Roebuck] that this was the only incident in his careerof which he felt truly ashamed. It had been a witch-hunt, nothing more or less, and one of the loudest voices, sad to say, was that of James Hunt. To the end of Hunt's life, the rift between himself and Patrese was never healed.