97 replies to this topic

[Jerome]

There was a very interesting documentary on Jacky Ickx on Belgian television yesterday (Canvas). Apart from the usual remarkable events in his career (winning rain soaked Grand Prix’s, his fiery accident in Jarama 1970, his Le Mans victories (especially the first one, with his ‘oh-dear-I’m-out-of-fuel’ trick), his winning the Paris-Dakar-rally, losing it too once to Vatanen, because of Jean Todts’ flip of the coin), there were some things I at least was suprised about:


1. The interviewer confronted Ickx with the rumour that Ickx and his regular mechanic Giulo Borsari had lost the worldtitle in 1970 to Rindt on purpose...
Ickx in 1970 had to win three grand prix in a row to take the World Title from Rindt, who was killed at Monza. Ickx won the first two that were needed. Then in the last one, he had a failure in his fueltank. Was that ‘arranged’, the interviewer asked. ‘That’s a legend,’ said Ickx, three times in a row. But his mechanic Borsari said: ‘Oh, well, you know. I only have two eyes. I could not check everything. Perhaps someone cut the fuel-line and then installed it again.’
Ickx (confronted with this line of his old mechanic?) said, with a quaint smile: ‘Well, let’s say that the fuel-problem was a very fortunate one.’
2. In de tv-doc, Jacky Ickx talked openly about the ghastly accidents he had been in, and admitted for instance, that he felt responsible for the death of his co-driver and friend in a Paris-Dakarrace. But in the documentary not a word about the death of Stefan Bellof. Which I thought was very strange. Ickx bore no guilt in that accident, did he? But it really seemed to me that Bellof was declared a non-topic. A idea that was enhanced when I visited the non-official but endorsed website http://www.jacky-ickx-fan.net. Could not find Bellof there, either. So is there anything up with that? Here’s the video of the accident by the way. Made me wonder…

3. Little less important perhaps. Nina Rindt was also interviewed in the tv-doc, about the 1970 season. And she had some warm words for Ickx and some very harsh ones for Chapman. She said, literally: ‘Jochen was blackmailed in the car. Jochen wanted to drive the 49, because he thought the 72 was unsafe, Chapman promised to take the 49 to Monza, but didn’t.’ I knew that story was around, but I never actually saw and heard someone close to Rindt really say it.

Curious about your insights, fellows.

[EcosseF1]

Stefan Bellof and Jochen Rindt both died in racing accidents. Both have been discussed at length on this forum and any attempt to point fingers and blame someone for either driver's unfortunate death is pointless and potentially hurtful IMHO.

[Sergio Sultani]

IF the "old" Jack Brabham did not have problems in the last lap of 1970 Monaco and British GP, Jacky Ickx had been the 1970 F1 World Champion (Rindt =39 and Ickx=40 points) by just one point.

But, how everything in the life it is just "A SIMPLE IF"...


VIVA SUPER AGURY !!

Regards,
SS.

[Jerome]

Hmm Ecosse, did you read my post?

I am not pointing fingers. I am telling about a program I've seen that surprised me. I don't blame Ickx for the death of Bellof, because I blame Bellof for the accident of Bellof. But I am intrigued how certain things were discussed in the program... and some were not.

[EcosseF1]

Yes, I read your post. My point was both matters have been discussed at length on the forum already and I fail to see the point of dragging them up again. If you really want to know more then read the existing threads.

[Spitfire]

Well, Jerome.Inen, it shouldn't be surprising that there's a negative reaction to the Rindt / Monza part of your post. . . it has been discussed at length here and your post does seem to want to bring it up again. . .

However, the part of the fuel issue with Ickx' Ferrari is pretty interesting. I haven't heard this "intentional failure" theory before. Actually, I'd consider it complete hog wash, if you had merely mentioned a wry smile while saying it's a "legend."

But to say ‘Well, let’s say that the fuel-problem was a very fortunate one.’ is a pretty interesting quote.

Still, something is clearly wrong with the whole thing. Given the (very reasonable) fear of fire in a racing car, the absolute last thing you would do to let a WDC go to someone else, it risk setting your car on fire.

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen


Ickx in 1970 had to win three grand prix in a row to take the World Title from Rindt, who was killed at Monza. Ickx won the first two that were needed. Then in the last one, he had a failure in his fueltank.

For the sake of accuracy, it was the second of the tree in which he had problems.

[Jerome]

Originally posted by Spitfire
Well, Jerome.Inen, it shouldn't be surprising that there's a negative reaction to the Rindt / Monza part of your post. . . it has been discussed at length here and your post does seem to want to bring it up again. . .

I did write next to that point: The least important thing, didn't I? I have read the thread about Rindt, I don't want to drag it up, I thought it was remarkable that the docmakers found Nina Rindt prepared to talk, and that she was that frank about it.


The fuel story, it's a strange story. And the denial of Ickx was also very strange... Still, I don't think Ickx lost the wc on purpose... but perhaps I am naive...

And oh, thanx for the correction Roger.

[Twin Window]

Let's stick to what Ickx actually said in the documentary, as opposed to guessing the reasons as to why he didn't mention certain things.

Originally posted by Roger Clark

For the sake of accuracy, it was the second of the tree in which he had problems.

I didn't realise that you were Irish, Roger...

[ensign14]

Ah, someone's twigged.

[lil'chris]

Better branch off into a new subject then

[RA Historian]

Better leaf it alone..............

[Ray Bell]

You never know what you might root out...

[David Shaw]

It didn't take you long to bark Ray.

[FLB]

Let's not beat about the bushes.

[Arjan de Roos]

Can't see the wood for the trees....

But Jerome, coming back on the 1970 title, I found in the past only a few writings in the literature coming from Ickx. He claimed that he was "happy" not to have won the title. I always assumed it a remark coming straight from his heart with a dislike to the idea of having grabbed the title away from Rindt.
On any staging I personally think that it is far fetched. Especially a chief mechanic as Borsari being very loyal to Ferrari. Winning the title was quite crucial to the whole operation. All involved with the Scuderia knew that very well. Despite Rindt's fate.
You only have to look at the history of Ferrari in F1 to see that it steered through some dark periods, and yet the target remained at racing and winning races. Even after losing team drivers. Rindt was with the other team.

With Spa 1985 please note that it was a very harsh thing for Ickx. Bellof was a great driver. The freak incident, in Belgium notably, shocked him deeply and ended his track racing career.

[Jerome]

Yeah, Arjan,

My take on the situation at Spa 1985 is: Ickx knew he wasn't to blame in the accident... but he still blames himself. Bellof was very intent of beating Ickx (just like Senna was intent on beating Prost in F1, just because he was the topdog). I think that Ickx just could not believe Bellof really would stay on the outside at Eau Rouge. But he did. If Bellof had survived the accident, I think that Ickx would have screamed at him at the top of his lungs.

Regarding what Ickx said and did not say: I was a journalist for twelve years, and I am very, very wary about tv documentaries in which people just 'happen' to not discuss certain things. Authorised interviews are a plague of journalism, and especially sportjournalism. Soccerplayers, f1 racers, captains of industry: especially in the European press, they demand almost full authority of a text or broadcast.

About the intentional fuel-lining cutting: I don't believe myself either. My take is: both Ickx and the whole F1 community have somehow ingraned into their beliefs that Rindt was the deserved winner of the 1970 title, however close Ickx came. The story about the fuelsabotage (or the lack of plausible denial by Borsari) is almost an excuse that Ickx came so close!

While at the time, many people did not even know if that was possible, a posthume World Champion. Nina Rindt said something of the sort in the documentary: that she first did not care if Rindt would win or Ickx, because she was devestated by Rindts death anyway, and that at the time she just could not believe it was possible to be dead and a worldchampion. Nowadays she says she is very happy with it.

[green-blood]

Defending my Irishness, perhaps Twinnie is a SAP

honestly meant in jest....

I'd be interested in his thoughts on the Dakar...was there any expansion on that, a lot of deaths there, probably the worst record left for Motorsport.

[Jerome]

Ickx told the interviewer that he fell in love with Africa because of the Paris Dakar race. But he did not elaborate on the many deaths thaf fell there. Let's say he was vaguely filosophical about it...

[Racer.Demon]

Originally posted by EcosseF1
Both have been discussed at length on this forum and any attempt to point fingers and blame someone for either driver's unfortunate death is pointless and potentially hurtful IMHO.

I'm sorry to kickstart this controversial topic - but where? I am researching the Ickx/Bellof clash at Spa for my own modest purposes - a brief Ickx bio for 8W - but I want to make sure I have the facts straight. A TNF search for 'Ickx Bellof Spa 1985' doesn't give me many options.

I have found references to blue flags being shown to Ickx and the Belgian moving aside for Bellof before cutting back in, brought forward by people trying to lay the blame squarely at Ickx's feet.

http://www.i-t-d.net...de/spa_85_0.jpg
http://www.i-t-d.net.../spa_skizze.jpg
http://www.i-t-d.net...nde/az_1_85.jpg

This publication by German magazine Auto Zeitung and remarks by other German reporters were also mentioned in this old and unresolved TNF thread:

http://forums.autosp...&threadid=48075

However, the inevitable Wikipedia supports these claims, which is enough reason for doubt in itself.

So was Ickx being lapped? AFAIK, the two had been battling for the lead for laps, and Bellof in his privateer 956 was trying to overtake the old master in his works 962C at his home track.

I fully agree that trying to blame someone for Bellof's death is pointless, but what's the deal here? Is this an ugly case of German revisionism?

Looking at the official results of the race (http://wsrp.ic.cz/wsc1985.html#7) where both Ickx and Bellof are credited with 77 laps, one is inclined to say yes. And the commentator in this YouTube clip also tells us that Ickx was leading Bellof:



Further to that, it shows that Ickx was lapping a backmarker when he moved to the right after La Source instead of 'giving room' to Bellof...

[alansart]

Originally posted by Racer.Demon


So was Ickx being lapped? AFAIK, the two had been battling for the lead for laps, and Bellof in his privateer 956 was trying to overtake the old master in his works 962C at his home track.

This video http://www.youtube.c...related&search= says Ickx was in the lead.

In my opinion it was a racing accident or perhaps a misunderstanding between the 2 drivers. Eau Rouge is a wonderful corner but difficult to overtake at. If Bellof was lapping Ickx why not wait to the long straight that follows.

I don't really buy the german revisionsim. Both were/are great drivers and that's how I will remember them.

As an aside: I was contacted by a team in Germany preparing some of Stefan Bellofs old cars for a Museum in his home town. They had found his old FF1600 PRS which was in bits. As I have a complete version they wanted advice on how it went together, for which I was happy to advise.

[Muzza]

Hi Alan,


Please share the name and address of the museum where Bellof's cars will be exhibited.

Thanks,


Muzza

[alansart]

Originally posted by Muzza
Hi Alan,


Please share the name and address of the museum where Bellof's cars will be exhibited.

Thanks,


Muzza

All I know it's where he was born, Giesen.

I was approached by MHHD Racing who are putting the car together. Having given them the info, I've not heard anything since.

[Doug Nye]

Isn't there a history of Germans being rather nasty to Belgians? I know from personal experience that some German motor racing pressmen seemed unreasonably outraged about poor Bellof having lost his life in that collision with Ickx...

DCN

[ex Rhodie racer]

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Isn't there a history of Germans being rather nasty to Belgians? DCN

No.

[Jerome]

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Isn't there a history of Germans being rather nasty to Belgians? I know from personal experience that some German motor racing pressmen seemed unreasonably outraged about poor Bellof having lost his life in that collision with Ickx...

DCN

I think the German press believed (with some reason, I believe) that Bellof was going to be their next Von Trips - without the fatality please. But then Bellof was snuffed out... Too tough a fate, I think. I'ts hard to imagine, actually, that German motorpress was once so frustrated they could not put a dent into F1 with one of their drivers. Who saw the guy from Kerpen coming?

[Stirling]

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Isn't there a history of Germans being rather nasty to Belgians?
DCN

Originally posted by ex Rhodie racer


No.

Er, not even in 1914 and 1940?;)

On another point, I must say that I'm surprised that several people have jumped on this thread and called it pointless purely on the grounds that some of the issues raised have been discussed in the past on the forum. History in general is constantly being rewritten - and the early 21st century's Napoleon or Henry VIII is likely to be a different beast from those portrayed in histories written a hundred, or even fifty, years ago. I see no reason not to apply this to the historiography of FI. New research constantly updates our knowledge; and shifts in academic priorities often change perspectives over time.

On a forum such as this, you must also factor in the fact that if a topic was gone over say four years ago, not only will the general principles of change noted above perhaps be relevant, but also those who took part will perhaps no longer be active members of the board. More particularly, there will certainly be many new members who had no input when the topic was originally aired. There are bound to be topics of perenniel interest, and ongoing discussion of these over the years will ensure that the latest research, opinion and thinking on these is constantly updated on the forum as a matter of record.

ciao,
Stirling

[alansart]

Originally posted by Stirling

More particularly, there will certainly be many new members who had no input when the topic was originally aired. There are bound to be topics of perenniel interest, and ongoing discussion of these over the years will ensure that the latest research, opinion and thinking on these is constantly updated on the forum as a matter of record.

ciao,
Stirling

As a fairly new member around here I have to agree with that.

Back to the topic.

I've read elsewhere (Motorsport I think) that Rindt wasn't happy driving the 72 and was possibly on the verge of retiring, but was under pressure from Chapman to race.

The Bellof crash must have affected Jack Ickx. It must go through your mind that if you had handled it differently the outcome would have been less tragic. Bellof was a hard racer and prepared to take a chance and that was possibly his downfall, but in reality there wasn't much he could have done about it. In his heyday Ickx was prepared to take a chance. Very few people in F1 could overtake around the outside at Paddock and get away with it. The fact it was against Niki Lauda and it was raining quite hard makes it even more remarkable.

[Jerome]

I'm happy some of the (newer?) posters support me on this. I can understand that if a started a thread with: 'Ickx and Bellof's death: was he to blame?', that I would get harsh words. But for chrissakes. I just pointed out a fascinating tv documentary, that omitted one thing in Ickx career. If one had to sum up the quintessential Jacky Icx in five chapters they would be:

1. Ickx’s 2nd place in a F2 car in a F1 race at the Nurburgring
2. Ickx’s F1-exploits in the rain
3. Ickx’s loss to Rindt in 1970-championship
4. Ickx’s crash with Bellof at Spa
5. Ickx’s racing at Paris Dakar

The documentary covered four 1,2,3 and 5. Not 4. Which was odd, and that was what I commented.

[ex Rhodie racer]

Good point Jerome. However, I don´t think anyone actually believes Jackie was in any way responsible for what was essentially a racing accident, and that, IMO, is why it wasn´t mentioned in the interview.
I hate it when people start playing the blame game. Motor racing is dangerous and people lose their lives, but I can´t think of a single case where someone deliberately shunted another driver off the track with the intention of killing him. Yes, people make mistakes, and later, their actions can be analysed with the benefit of hindsight. But anyone who has raced will know, hindsight is a luxury that does not exist in the moment an accident takes place. Split second decisions are called for, and sometimes, unfortunately, they are not always the right ones.
With regards the Bellof accident, I must say it really gets my back up when someone even so much as suggests that Ickx was in any way responsible for the crash..

[Jerome]

I agree with you there... I wrote in an earlier post that Ickx was not to blame for the death of Bellof. And I stand by that. But again, I found it striking that the tv-doc did not even mention the accident. Just like I found it striking that Nina Rindt was indeed interviewed about Monza 1970.

Racer.Demon: The jpg's of the marshall waving the blue flags say absolutelys nothing. This was endurance racing, remember, there's leaders overtaking backmarkers (read: Drivers in other, slower classes) all the time. The marshall looks actually PAST the cars of Bellof and Ickx while he is waving the flag. Cars go past that point at speeds above 200 km per hour. The marshall could've been looking at a car that drove in front of the leaders. He could have been looking at the leaders themselves. He could've been looking at cars driving behind the leaders.

So for 8W, I think it's safe to say: Bellof tried to overtake Ickx for the lead. On the outside of Eau Rouge. How Ickx thinks about the accident, I don't know. In the last weeks I've tried to find an interview with Ickx in which he comments the accident, but I could not find it. Perhaps one of the other posters knows a link, or remembers a printed interview.

[Stirling]

Originally posted by ex Rhodie racer

With regards the Bellof accident, I must say it really gets my back up when someone even so much as suggests that Ickx was in any way responsible for the crash..

Nigel Roebuck put it in a nutshell, I think: "Stefan Bellof was killed at the wheel of a Porsche 962 sportscar in the Spa 1000 Kms. In typical style, he was trying to do the impossible, overtaking Jacky Ickx into - of all places - Eau Rouge. The cars touched, and Bellof's Porsche, after spinning once, hit a barrier head on."

That the accident resulted from Bellof slipping over the edge of the limits he was characteristically operating on is reflected in the comment of Martin Brundle that "[Bellof would] always be the last to brake, and he'd get into extraordinary situations and somehow get away with it. He was totally fearless - way too brave, really."

Jerome has observed that neither Ickx himself in the TV documentary, nor the Official Jacky Ickx Fansite made mention of Bellof. But I don't think this indicates anything sinister. alansart has suggested - credibly - that part of the reason may be the understandable shock (as opposed to any guilt) which the accident impressed upon Ickx. However, the reason may be more prosaic and be no more than that it was not on the agenda of the TV producers. As for the Ickx fansite, Belhoff is not the only omission - its Ickx biography is conspicuously cursory, and Belhoff's absence is surely just one of many consequences of its lack of comprehensiveness.

ciao,
Stirling

[ghinzani]

Would Bellof have blamed Ickx? Of course not. Case closed as far as I am concerned. Stefan, like Gilles died in the manner he drove, over the edge and chancing his luck one time too many.

[Lutz G]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
So for 8W, I think it's safe to say: Bellof tried to overtake Ickx for the lead. On the outside of Eau Rouge. How Ickx thinks about the accident, I don't know. In the last weeks I've tried to find an interview with Ickx in which he comments the accident, but I could not find it. Perhaps one of the other posters knows a link, or remembers a printed interview.

Of course it was for the lead - as mentioned by Rudi Izdebski who saw the accident from the pits with his own eyes:

"Stefan and Ickx took their cars after a pit stop from their team mates. Ickx managed to return to the track with an advantage of 5 secs to Bellof on the Brun Porsche. Within shortest time the faster Bellof closed up on the works Porsche. Ickx blocked Stefan for three laps by all means. After La Source he suddenly rushed to the right (see drawing), a clear invitation to overtake. Stefan took it and was already besides Ickx when he (Ickx) pulled left into Eau Rouge and pushed Bellof away."

http://forums.autosp...&threadid=48075

http://www.izdebski....de/das_ende.php

Lutz

[Racer.Demon]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
Racer.Demon: The jpg's of the marshall waving the blue flags say absolutelys nothing. This was endurance racing, remember, there's leaders overtaking backmarkers (read: Drivers in other, slower classes) all the time. The marshall looks actually PAST the cars of Bellof and Ickx while he is waving the flag. Cars go past that point at speeds above 200 km per hour. The marshall could've been looking at a car that drove in front of the leaders. He could have been looking at the leaders themselves. He could've been looking at cars driving behind the leaders.

So for 8W, I think it's safe to say: Bellof tried to overtake Ickx for the lead. On the outside of Eau Rouge. How Ickx thinks about the accident, I don't know. In the last weeks I've tried to find an interview with Ickx in which he comments the accident, but I could not find it. Perhaps one of the other posters knows a link, or remembers a printed interview.

I already came to that conclusion actually - based on the official results and the contemporary commentary in the YouTube clip - so in hindsight my post was more about my absolute amazement (and frankly, disgust) at the blatant revisionism seen in those German magazines of the time, some of which is still maintained in several accounts of the accidents, including Wikipedia, which seems to suffer from these mistakes almost inevitably.

Ickx has endured several accidents that claimed the lives of others (at Spa in '64, Le Mans '70, Spa '85 and Pharaohs '91) while Lady Luck was with him in several others fiery crashes - the one with Oliver in Spain in '70 or Watkins Glen '76 come to mind - and almost always they spelled a career change. He almost quit altogether in '64, while he did quit sportscar racing and rally raids at the end of the seasons in which Bellof and Tarin were killed. So it's obvious that these accidents affected him very badly.

[lee]

hi ppl,

i know this thread is abt Jacky Ickx and i'm sorry if i'm hi jacking
but i'm so tired of hearing the likes of this "Stefan, like Gilles died in the manner he drove, over the edge and chancing his luck one time too many"

gilles didn't kill himseff, so many ppl love to indulge in a fantasy that never happened.

the hack mass was in the middle of the road when he broke one of the (unwritten rules) cardinal sins of motor racing
he switched lines (total wank move as far as i'm concerned) and backed up by lauda, so please spare me this crap abt vill living on the edge rubbish.

thx

lee

[Jerome]

Originally posted by lee
hi ppl,

i know this thread is abt Jacky Ickx and i'm sorry if i'm hi jacking
but i'm so tired of hearing the likes of this "Stefan, like Gilles died in the manner he drove, over the edge and chancing his luck one time too many"

gilles didn't kill himseff, so many ppl love to indulge in a fantasy that never happened.

the hack mass was in the middle of the road when he broke one of the (unwritten rules) cardinal sins of motor racing
he switched lines (total wank move as far as i'm concerned) and backed up by lauda, so please spare me this crap abt vill living on the edge rubbish.

thx

lee

Sorry Lee,

I'm not going into the Mass/Villeneuve incident, and I don't have too, but please don't fool yourself: Villeneuve was indeed living on the edge. Check the Japanese GP of 1977, 1979 Imola, Dijon 1979, Zandvoort 1979, Brazil 1982, Long Beach 1982. Gilles was a fantastic racer, but he was always in conflict with other drivers (especially Lauda, whom I admire, but who suffers from reconstructing history) for his dangerous moves. Just one reminder: Gilles Villeneuve and Rene Arnoux, after their fantastic drive in Dijon 1979, were reprimanded in an offcial meeting at the next Grand Prix by nearly ALL the other F1 drivers, because of their dangerous maneouvres. One of the loudest critics at that meeting was... Niki Lauda.

Gilles Villeneuve didn't kill himself, that's too crude a word. But he had many accidents he could have been killed in. And he had just one too many. Just one example then. Lauda remembers this, in his second autobiography: 'At the first practice of Zolder, in the first lap, in the first yards out of the pits, Gilles Villeneuve crashed his Ferrari. I went to him and asked: 'How can you manage to crash your car the first time you drive out of the pits?' Gilles replied: 'Sorry Niki, that's just the way I am.'

[Jim Thurman]

Originally posted by Stirling

However, the reason may be more prosaic and be no more than that it was not on the agenda of the TV producers.

Jerome, this is a strong point Stirling makes. In some cases, poor research would cover it.

Far different than the U.S. media, who bring up nothing but accidents (overlooking or omitting other career details and stories) - even ones the interview subject wasn't part of or even remotely connected to.

[Jerome]

Originally posted by Jim Thurman


Jerome, this is a strong point Stirling makes. In some cases, poor research would cover it.

Far different than the U.S. media, who bring up nothing but accidents (overlooking or omitting other career details and stories) - even ones the interview subject wasn't part of or even remotely connected to.

Agreed. It could all be total coincidence. But in this case the documentary was very well made. If it appears on Youtube or something, I will post the link.

[lee]

"Jerome.Inen"

all of which has nothing to do with the basic fact, mass switched lines.
by your reckoning a driver that's had off's is some how looking to
get himself killed?

i'm only pointing out the fallacy re GV's death (it was never a case of i'm gonna
make this crazy move to beat pironi) mass changed direction, simple as that.

smash the system,

p.s. sorry for the interruption.

lee

[Jerome]

Originally posted by lee
"Jerome.Inen"

all of which has nothing to do with the basic fact, mass switched lines.
by your reckoning a driver that's had off's is some how looking to
get himself killed?

i'm only pointing out the fallacy re GV's death (it was never a case of i'm gonna
make this crazy move to beat pironi) mass changed direction, simple as that.

smash the system,

p.s. sorry for the interruption.

lee

Not a interuption at all, dear Lee. The fact is that Villeneuve, in every instance, would go into a corner thinking: 'Right. I'm going LIKE THIS and if you give room, that's great. And if you don't, I will crash. That's fine also.'

Yes, Mass switched lines, and if that was a mistake or not, the fact remains that Villeneuve would always make his choice in passing unregarding knowing or not, what the other driver was going to do. Senna was the same, actually, but he in his time 1. People let himself be bullied. 2. The cars were so much safer than he could escape fysical harm when he did have an accident. Somewhere on the internet, there's a fantastic clip of Stewart interviewing Senna, and criticising Senna for his dangerous driving. It's fascinating. I think Stewart could have the same discussion with Villeneuve. Only Villeneuve would not get angry like Senna - but just smile.

By the way, Lee: I was a great fan of Villeneuve. Had his picture on my wall, and so forth.

[lee]

Jerome.Inen

i'm not having a go at you.

this is a forum that has more class than any other i've read and really like the input of most of it's contributors, but in pains me to see ppl write abt gv like he was maniac seeking death.

i'm finished with this and as i said b4 i'm not going at you mate.

thx,

lee

[Stirling]

Originally posted by lee
it pains me to see ppl write abt gv like he was maniac seeking death.

I don't think there's been any accusations of GV 'seeking' death, Lee, so much as the suggestion of his apparent 'indifference' to the possibility of death (to himself or others) being the consequence of his approach to motor racing. There's a significant difference between 'seeking' death and being 'indifferent' to the possibility of death - though for those who got in GV's way as a direct consequence of this attitude, the difference must have seemed slight indeed.

ciao,
Stirling

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by lee
.....this is a forum that has more class than any other i've read and really like the input of most of it's contributors, but in pains me to see ppl write abt gv like he was maniac seeking death.

i'm finished with this and as i said b4 i'm not going at you mate.

thx

Lee, nice of you to drop in and be so complimentary... we all hope you remain and have some input into many threads...

However, with the use of SMS-style writing, your posts might become difficult for some of us to understand, and with the broad audience we have, including many for whom English is not their first language, I would like to encourage you to use proper language to help all understand you.

[lee]

"Ray Bell"

Apologies my son, i know it's a lazy habit I've got myself into, I'll
be mindful of it if I post further.

smash the system,

lee

[Dave Wright]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
3. Little less important perhaps. Nina Rindt was also interviewed in the tv-doc, about the 1970 season. And she had some warm words for Ickx and some very harsh ones for Chapman. She said, literally: ‘Jochen was blackmailed in the car. Jochen wanted to drive the 49, because he thought the 72 was unsafe, Chapman promised to take the 49 to Monza, but didn’t.’ I knew that story was around, but I never actually saw and heard someone close to Rindt really say it.

Curious about your insights, fellows.

Given the GV topic may have run its course, perhaps its the time to look at this. Nina's comment did surprise me. Heinz Pruller's book on Rindt gives the exact opposite impression to this, and the book doesn't ignore Jochen's earlier criticisms of Chapman. When Chapman wanted Rindt to drive the Lotus 63 but Rindt wanted the 49, Rindt got his way. When he didn't feel confident in the 72 earlier in the season (such as at Spa) he didn't drive it.

[Jerome]

About Nina Rindt: I think it's a case of 'reconstructing history', or, if you want to phrase it psychologically, a case of disasociating yourself from reality - because that reality is too harsh. What's reality? I think that Rindt was very aware of the danger of driving the wingless Lotus 72 at Monza. I think he might even have voiced it. To Chapman, and ofcourse, also to his wife. Perhaps he even expressed his concerns about the dangers of the Lotus F1 cars (in that famous letter) BECAUSE of his wife. Because he wanted to show her he did care for her, and for their daughter.

The fact is that Rindt did not change his choices regarding the dangers of Lotus F1 cars. He could have stayed at Brabham, instead of taking the big money at Lotus - several people warned him not do it (Brabham, Ecclestone). He could have flatout refused to drive the wingless Lotus 72. He did none of these things. For Nina - who in the interview still talked passionately about Jochen - that reality has probably grown too hard to stomach. Hence the 'Chapman forced Jochen to drive a dangerous car.'

[Mohican]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
About Nina Rindt: I think it's a case of 'reconstructing history', or, if you want to phrase it psychologically, a case of disasociating yourself from reality - because that reality is too harsh. What's reality? I think that Rindt was very aware of the danger of driving the wingless Lotus 72 at Monza. I think he might even have voiced it. To Chapman, and ofcourse, also to his wife. Perhaps he even expressed his concerns about the dangers of the Lotus F1 cars (in that famous letter) BECAUSE of his wife. Because he wanted to show her he did care for her, and for their daughter.

The fact is that Rindt did not change his choices regarding the dangers of Lotus F1 cars. He could have stayed at Brabham, instead of taking the big money at Lotus - several people warned him not do it (Brabham, Ecclestone). He could have flatout refused to drive the wingless Lotus 72. He did none of these things. For Nina - who in the interview still talked passionately about Jochen - that reality has probably grown too hard to stomach. Hence the 'Chapman forced Jochen to drive a dangerous car.'

You may be right, but I remember many cars running without, or with very small, wings at Monza in 1969 and 1970 - and I do not remember any discussion of the Lotus 72 being more inherently dangerous than others as a result.

I always understood that it was the inboard brake shaft that broke, that this caused the car to turn into the barriers and that poor Rindt was killed as a result of "torpedoing"down the chassis and hence breaking his neck and/or being asphyxiated - this a consequence of not wearing a full six-point safety belt. Not sure what any of this had to do with running with less downforce, though.

Getting back on the original topic, I think that watching photographs of this period brings home how incredibly dangerous racing was in those days - not only the cars themselves but also the tracks. Just look at Brands Hatch in 1970-71. Poor Siffert stood no chance at all.

It is another thing entirely that the cars AT THE TIME were considered safer than what had gone before, with seat belts and "better" roll over bars (we have had an earlier discussion on this very topic, though; remember starting it myself at some stage).

[Jerome]

Originally posted by Mohican


You may be right, but I remember many cars running without, or with very small, wings at Monza in 1969 and 1970 - and I do not remember any discussion of the Lotus 72 being more inherently dangerous than others as a result.

I always understood that it was the inboard brake shaft that broke, that this caused the car to turn into the barriers and that poor Rindt was killed as a result of "torpedoing"down the chassis and hence breaking his neck and/or being asphyxiated - this a consequence of not wearing a full six-point safety belt. Not sure what any of this had to do with running with less downforce, though.

Getting back on the original topic, I think that watching photographs of this period brings home how incredibly dangerous racing was in those days - not only the cars themselves but also the tracks. Just look at Brands Hatch in 1970-71. Poor Siffert stood no chance at all.

It is another thing entirely that the cars AT THE TIME were considered safer than what had gone before, with seat belts and "better" roll over bars (we have had an earlier discussion on this very topic, though; remember starting it myself at some stage).

Oh, I agree with you there. The actual crash had little to do perhaps with the Lotus 72 wing or lack thereoff. It's more that Rindt was quite prolific in his concern of the safety of the Lotus F1 cars, the car he drove himself in... even in a way I have never seen, and never seen since. I can't remember a racing driver writing a LETTER to his boss expressing his concern. I always think of Jean Pierre Jabouille who said about his accident with the Renault R80 (I believe) that shattered his legs: 'I knew as an engineer this car was dangerous for my legs. But as a driver, I chose to drive in it.' Drivers either shut up or step away... like some drivers refused to drive the first protoptypes of the Porsche which had a fueltank in the front!
The safety-belts is another good example. Rindt was complaining about the safety of the Lotus -design... and then he didn't wear his seatbelts... I know there was some discussion at the time if safety belts were safe or not ('In fire you're better of thrown clear of the car') but that discussion itself was, I think, a sign of cognitive disassociation: in other words: thinking one way, but acting the other way.
Yes, the cars were terribly, terribly unsafe. But what strikes me the most is that the drivers, and the organisers, and constructors like Chapman acted according to their time. Which meant: danger was accepted. Or denied. Cars and tracks at that time could already have been much safer. That's why I admire Jacky Stewart so much: here's someone who really went against the grain of his time.

[David M. Kane]

Jerome:

He had two of the three belts attached. The shoulder and lap strapes were attached and buckled. It was the submarine strape that wasn't attached, so he wasn't prevented from sliding forward.